T H E C OMPREHENSIVE C O N S E RVAT I O N

A N D M ANA GEMENT P LAN F O R T AMP A BAY

M A Y 2006

CHARTING 

COURSE the
TAMPA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM

RICHARD ECKENROD

DIRECTOR

HOLLY GREENING

SENIOR PROGRAM SCIENTIST

NANETTE HOLLAND

PUBLIC OUTREACH COORDINATOR

MISTY CLADAS

PROJECT MANAGER

RON HOSLER

OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR

LINDSAY CROSS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATE

COLLEEN GRAY

OUTREACH ASSISTANT

WRITERS:

NANETTE HOLLAND

MARY KELLEY HOPPE

LINDSAY CROSS

THE PROGRAM OFFICE IS LOCATED AT:

100 8TH AVE. S.E.

ST. PETERSBURG, FL 33701

TELEPHONE (727) 893-2765

FAX (727) 893-2767

TO EXPLORE TAMPA BAY ONLINE, VISIT US AT WWW.TBEP.ORG
CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Charting 

the Course 

for 

Tampa Bay

May 2006

THE MISSION OF THE TAMPA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM IS TO BUILD

PARTNERSHIPS TO RESTORE AND PROTECT TAMPA BAY THROUGH

IMPLEMENTATION OF A SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND, COMMUNITY-BASED

MANAGEMENT PLAN.

In memory of our friend and colleague, Roy G. Harrell, Jr., 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program Policy Board member (1992-1996), champion and

author of the landmark Interlocal Agreement for bay restoration

adopted in 1997.
II

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

PREFACE

This first revision of Charting the Course encompasses the 2003-2008 timeframe. It

provides a look back at progress made in implementing the original goals and priorities

of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay, and a look

ahead at updated bay restoration and protection strategies. Charting the Course is

intended to provide a flexible, evolving framework that can be adapted to the changing

needs of both the bay and the bay management community.

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) was established by Congress in 1991 to assist

the region in developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for bay improvement.

The Program is a partnership of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Florida

Department of Environmental Protection; Southwest Florida Water Management

District; Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties; and the cities of Tampa, St.

Petersburg and Clearwater. 

The revised Action Plans for bay improvement presented in this document reflect input

from bay managers, advocates, key industries and citizens from throughout the region.

The actions within this Plan were reviewed and refined by outside experts as well as

members of TBEP’s Technical Advisory Committee and Community Advisory

Committee. Final Action Plans were approved by TBEP’s Management and Policy

Boards over a 2-year period. We thank all the individuals who participated for their substantial insights and contributions.

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program invites your comments and participation as we continue to assist the region in charting the course for the future well-being of Tampa Bay.
III

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

About the Tampa Bay Estuary Program ..................................................VIII

About Charting the Course ..........................................................................IX

Partners of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program ................................................XI

State of the Bay ..............................................................................................1

Goals and Priorities for Tampa Bay ..............................................................18

Introduction to Action Plans (See complete index of Action Plans, page IV) ............20

Water & Sediment Quality Action Plan ....................................................22

Bay Habitats Action Plan ........................................................................75

Bay Fish & Wildlife Action Plan ............................................................96

Dredging & Dredged Material Management Action Plan ....................111

Spill Prevention & Response Action Plan ............................................115

Invasive Species Action Plan (New) ......................................................120

Public Education & Involvement Action Plan ......................................124

Public Access Action Plan (New)..........................................................129

Implementation & Financing ......................................................................132

Research and Monitoring Priorities ............................................................138

General References ....................................................................................144

Glossary ......................................................................................................148

List of Acronyms ........................................................................................150

See Index of Action Plans, page IV.
IV

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

INDEX OF ACTION PLANS AND ACTIONS FOR TAMPA BAY 

WATER & SEDIMENT QUALITY

Actions to improve overall water quality:

WQ-1 Implement the Tampa Bay nitrogen management strategy . .23

WQ-2 Reduce pollution from recreational boaters . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

New Action – Includes Steps from TX-3, PH-3 & SP-3

Actions to reduce pollution from stormwater runoff:

SW-1 Continue support for Florida Yards & Neighborhoods 

Program and similar pollution prevention initiatives . . . . ..30

SW-2 Assist businesses in implementing best management 

practices to reduce stormwater pollution, and develop model 

landscaping guidelines for commercial use . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

SW-3 Encourage local governments to adopt integrated pest 

management policies and implement environmentally 

beneficial landscaping practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

SW-4 Reduce impervious paved surfaces 

Action Retired- Incorporated into SW-10

SW-5 Require older properties being redeveloped to meet 

current stormwater treatment standards for that portion 

of the site being redeveloped

Action Retired- Incorporated into SW-10

SW-6 Promote compact urban development and redevelopment

Action Retired – Incorporated into SW-10

SW-7 Enforce and require the timely completion of the 

consent order for the cleanup of fertilizer facilities in 

the East Bay sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

SW-8 Encourage best management practices on farms . . . . . . . . .38

SW-9 Improve compliance with agricultural ground and 

surface water management plans

Action Retired

SW-10 Design and implement a Low Impact Development 

strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

New Action – Includes Steps from SW-4, SW-5 & SW-6

SW-11 Expand the Adopt-A-Pond program to additional 

communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

New Action

Actions to reduce the effects of air pollution on the bay:

AD-1 Continue atmospheric deposition studies to better 

understand the relationship between air and water 

quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
V

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

AD-2 Promote public and business energy conservation . . . . . . . .49

Actions to reduce pollution from wastewater discharged to the bay:

WW-1 Expand the use of reclaimed water where reuse benefits 

the bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

WW-2 Extend central sewer service to priority areas now 

served by septic systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

WW-3 Require standardized monitoring of wastewater 

discharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

WW-4 Revise HRS rules to incorporate environmental 

performance or design standards for septic systems 

Action Retired – Incorporated into WW-2

Actions to reduce toxic contaminants in the bay:

TX-1 Address hot spots of toxic contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

TX-2 Improve opportunities for proper hazardous waste 

disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

TX-3 Reduce toxic contaminants from ports and marinas

Action Retired – Incorporated into WQ-2

Actions to reduce pathogens:

PH-1 Reduce the occurrence of municipal sewer overflows . . . .70

PH-2 Continue source and risk assessments of human and 

ecosystem health indicators suitable for subtropical marine 

beaches and waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

PH-3 Install additional sewage pump-out facilities for 

recreational boaters and live-aboard vessels

Action Retired – Incorporated into WQ-2

BAY HABITATS

Actions to increase and preserve the number and diversity 

of healthy bay habitats:

BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay master plan for habitat 

restoration and protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

BH-2 Implement mitigation criteria for 

Tampa Bay, and identify priority sites for mitigation . . . . .80

BH-3 Reduce propeller scarring of seagrass and pursue 

seagrass restoration opportunities at select sites . . . . . . . . .83

BH-4 Restrict impacts to hard-bottom communities . . . . . . . . . . .86

BH-5 Improve management of parking and vehicle access 

along causeways and coastal areas 

Action Retired – Incorporated into PA-1
VI

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

BH-6 Encourage waterfront residents to enhance shorelines 

and limit runoff from yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

BH-7 Improve compliance with and enforcement of wetland 

permits 

Action Retired – Incorporated into BH-2

BH-8 Expand habitat mapping and monitoring programs . . . . . . .91

Actions to establish and preserve adequate freshwater inflows to 

Tampa Bay and its tributaries:

FI-1 Maintain minimum seasonal freshwater 

flows downstream of dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

FISH & WILDLIFE

Actions to protect and enhance fisheries and wildlife:

FW-1 Increase on-water enforcement of environmental 

regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

FW-2 Establish and enforce manatee protection zones . . . . . . .100

FW-3 Support bay scallop restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

FW-4 Assess the need to investigate the cumulative impacts of

power plant entrainment on fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104

FW-5 Continue and expand the Critical Fisheries Monitoring

Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106

FW-6 Preserve the diversity and abundance of bay wildlife . . . .108

New Action

DREDGING & DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT

Actions to reduce the impact of dredging and improve dredged 

material management:

DR-1 Manage dredging and dredged material in Tampa Bay . . . .112

SPILL PREVENTION & RESPONSE

Actions to improve spill prevention and response:

SP-1 Establish an integrated vessel traffic system for 

Tampa Bay and permanently fund the PORTS system . . .116

SP-2 Evaluate and update spill response plans for priority 

areas ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118

SP-3 Improve fueling and bilge-pumping practices among 

pleasure boaters

Action Retired – Incorporated into WQ-2
VII

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

INVASIVE SPECIES (New Action Plan)

Actions to reduce the occurrence of invasive species in the bay:

IS-1 Assess the extent of existing marine bio-invasions in

Tampa Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121

New Action

IS-2 Implement a public education program to enlist citizen help in

preventing marine bio-invasions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122

New Action

PUBLIC EDUCATION & INVOLVEMENT

Actions to increase public education and involvement:

PE-1 Promote public involvement in bay restoration 

and protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125

PUBLIC ACCESS (New Action Plan)

Actions to promote responsible public use of the bay:

PA-1 Reduce human and pet waste in traditional bay 

recreation areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130

New Action
VIII

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ABOUT THE TAMPA BAY

ESTUARY PROGRAM

The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (TBNEP) was established in 1991 to assist

the region in developing and implementing a comprehensive plan to restore and protect Tampa Bay. The Program is part of a national network of 28 estuary programs

established under the Clean Water Act and administered by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA).

The landmark agreement establishing the Tampa Bay NEP brought together

Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties; the cities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and

Clearwater; the Southwest Florida Water Management District; the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection; and EPA in a partnership committed to

action. 

In 1998, these and six other partners signed a formal Interlocal Agreement, and ancillary agreements, pledging to achieve the goals of the newly completed

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay, called

Charting the Course. The Plan culminated nearly six years of scientific research into

the bay's most pressing problems, and reflected broad-based input from citizens,

groups and communities with a common interest in a healthy bay as the cornerstone

of a prosperous economy. 

Upon adoption of the Interlocal Agreement, the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program

became simply the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, in recognition of its reorganization

as a truly regional alliance.

TBEP continues to coordinate the overall protection and restoration of the bay with

assistance and support from its many formal and informal partners. TBEP monitors

progress in achieving the goals of the CCMP by regularly summarizing and evaluating

information provided by program participants. Under the terms of the Interlocal

Agreement governing the Program, TBEP is required to review and update the major

goals for bay restoration every five years to assess progress, revise strategies as 

needed and address emerging issues affecting the bay. 

TBEP leverages the resources of program partners by financing cutting-edge research

into key problems impacting the bay; sponsoring demonstration projects to test innovative solutions to these problems; providing “Mini-Grants” to community groups to

engage the public in bay restoration; and developing educational programs targeting

key segments of the bay community – including teachers, boaters and homeowners. 
IX

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ABOUT CHARTING THE COURSE

This document represents the first revision of Charting the Course, the

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay, encompassing

the years 2003-2008.

The original Charting the Course, formally adopted in 1997, set forth specific, measurable goals for bay improvement in five areas: Water & Sediment Quality, Bay

Habitats, Fish & Wildlife, Dredging & Dredged Material Management, and Spill

Prevention & Response. A sixth Action Plan highlighted Public Involvement and

Education strategies to foster a bay stewardship ethic among the region’s residents.

Within these action plans were 41 individual actions which identified a range of

strategies that allow local communities to maximize return on their investment in bay

restoration and protection.

In this first update, two Action Plan areas have been added to the initial list: Invasive

Species and Public Access. These additions reflect new or emerging issues for the bay

management community. Several individual actions in the original Plan have been

merged, modified or eliminated as well, while new actions have been added based on

revised information and newly identified priorities. New actions are underlined in the

Index of Actions at the beginning of Charting the Course; merged, modified or retired

actions also are noted in the Index. This update encompasses 38 actions – eight of

them appearing in the Plan for the first time.

Following are descriptions of the document’s major components.

STATE OF THE BAY

This chapter summarizes progress made in bay protection and restoration since the

adoption of the original management plan, noting ongoing or new challenges.

Important trends in the key issue areas identified by TBEP and its partners are

presented here.

GOALS & PRIORITIES

Goals and priorities for Tampa Bay are summarized in a chart immediately preceding

bay action plans. These specific and attainable targets are the foundation for strategies

and themes advanced in Charting the Course. They relay overall priorities for bay

restoration and protection, to better evaluate the benefits of measures to protect this

vital environmental and economic resource.

ACTION PLANS FOR BAY IMPROVEMENT

Charting the Course presents a comprehensive slate of approved actions to assist 

community partners in selecting cost-effective and environmentally beneficial

improvements in the eight key areas identified above. Action plans for Tampa Bay
X

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

identify a range of strategies that allow local communities to maximize return on 

their investment in bay recovery and protection. Many actions also achieve multiple 

environmental objectives, such as pollution prevention and water conservation. 

Each action contains a background section summarizing the issue; the current status

of the action; and the “next steps” necessary to implement the action, identifying a

projected schedule for completion as well as responsible parties.

References in action plans to local governments under the heading “Responsible parties” refer to Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties and the cities of Tampa, St.

Petersburg and Clearwater, unless otherwise noted, although all local communities in

the region are urged to participate.

New actions are underlined in the Index of Action Plans at the beginning of this document. Old actions with a line through them (strikethrough) have been retired or incorporated into other actions as noted in the Index. 

IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

TBEP partners signed a formal Interlocal Agreement in 1997 pledging to achieve the

goals of the bay management plan and committing to specific actions and timetables.

The Implementation & Financing chapter describes the agreement and TBEP’s role in

overseeing implementation, as well as mechanisms for financing bay restoration and

protection strategies.

MONITORING BAY IMPROVEMENT

Long-term monitoring of Tampa Bay’s health is central to the success of bay restoration efforts, enabling communities to measure return on investment and helping bay

managers redirect their efforts when necessary. The bay monitoring program devised

by TBEP in cooperation with local governments and agencies is presented in the

Research and Monitoring chapter, along with key research priorities that have been

revised to reflect new issues and associated gaps in scientific knowledge.
XI

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

PARTNERS OF THE TAMPA BAY

ESTUARY PROGRAM

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

MANATEE COUNTY

PINELLAS COUNTY

CITY OF CLEARWATER

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG

CITY OF TAMPA

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

TAMPA BAY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL

TAMPA PORT AUTHORITY

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
XII

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

POLICY BOARD

Deborah Getzoff

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection 

Chair

Tom Welborn

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Region IV

Vice-Chair

Councilman James S. Bennett

City of St. Petersburg

Commissioner Ronnie Duncan

Pinellas County

Vice Mayor Bill Jonson

City of Clearwater

Janet Kovach

Governing Board

Southwest Florida Water

Management District

Commissioner Joe McClash

Manatee County

Councilwoman Linda Saul-Sena

City of Tampa

Commissioner Mark Sharpe

Hillsborough County

MANAGEMENT BOARD

Deborah Getzoff

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection 

Chair

Tom Welborn

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IV

Vice-Chair

Mahshid Arasteh

City of Clearwater

Jim Beever

Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Rob Brown

Co-Chair 

Technical Advisory Committee

Karen Collins-Fleming

Manatee County 

Michael Connors

City of St. Petersburg

Paula Dye

Tampa Bay Water

Lizanne Garcia

Southwest Florida Water

Management District

Richard Garrity

Environmental Protection

Commission of Hillsborough

County

Eric K. Gasch

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

David Glicksberg

Hillsborough County

George Henderson

Fish and Wildlife Research

Institute 

Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Craig Kovach

Co-Chair

Nitrogen Management

Consortium

Ralph Metcalf

City of Tampa

Bob Minthorn

Co-Chair

Community Advisory

Committee

Dave Parsche

Tampa Port Authority 

Manny Pumariega

Tampa Bay Regional Planning

Council 

Members of the Tampa Bay 

Management Conference

The work of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program is guided by a Tampa Bay

Management Conference, which was convened at the program's outset to provide

direction and input into bay problems and solutions from diverse community sectors.

The Conference is comprised of key policy leaders representing local, state and federal government; members of the region's scientific and technical communities; business, agricultural and special interest groups; and citizens from throughout the region.

Conference participants are recognized here for their considerable contributions in

charting the course for Tampa Bay.
XIII

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Dorothy Rainey

Co-Chair 

Community Advisory

Committee

Andy Squires

Co-Chair

Technical Advisory Committee

Jake Stowers

Pinellas County

COMMUNITY ADVISORY

COMMITTEE

Robert Minthorn, Gibsonton

Retired Educator

Co-Chair

Dorothy Rainey, Ruskin

Environmental Specialist

Co-Chair

Pauline Archard, Tampa

Medicare Health Sales

Dale Armstrong, St. Petersburg

Horticulturist (Florida Yards &

Neighborhoods Program)

Emerson Atkinson, Tampa

Real Estate Developer

Sheri Bazany, St. Petersburg

Graphic Designer/Artist

Susan Brandon, Oldsmar

Eco-Tour Operator

Patrick Cannizzaro, 

St. Petersburg

Environmental Educator 

Jeanette Doyle, Apollo Beach

Retired Educator

Mary Ewers, Clearwater

Retired Business Executive

Mike Herdegen, St. Petersburg

Business Owner

Cheryl Johnson, Brandon

SWFWMD/Alafia River Basin

Board 

Marjorie Karvonen, 

St. Petersburg

Gerontological Consultant

Mike McKinney, Wesley Chapel 

League of Women Voters of

Hillsborough County

Blake Meinecke, Plant City

Environmental Scientist

Sharon Meininger, Clearwater

Retired Educator

Tom Patka, Tampa

Attorney

Mandy Peterson, St. Petersburg

Management Consultant

Catherine Quindiagan, 

St. Petersburg

Retired Educator

Sandra Ripberger, Bradenton

Retired Non-Profit Executive

John Samaha, Tampa

Business Owner

Cynthia Scaglione, Tampa

Consultant

Summer Solomon,

Temple Terrace

Environmental Educator

Gwen Tillotson, Odessa

Community Water Activist

Terrie Weeks, St. Petersburg

Naturalist

Ray Wunderlich, St. Petersburg

Business Owner

TECHNICAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE

Rob Brown

Co-Chair

Manatee County Environmental

Management Department

Andy Squires 

Co-Chair

Pinellas County Department of

Environmental Management

Chris Anastasiou

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

Jim Anderson

Seagrass Recovery, Inc

Damann Anderson

Hazen and Sawyer

Bill Arnold 

Fish and Wildlife Research

Institute 

Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Walt Avery

City of Tampa Bay Study Group

Susan Bell

University of South Florida 

Biology Department

Peter Betzer

University of South Florida 

College of Marine Science

Bart Bibler

Florida Department of Health

Beverly Birkitt

Birkitt Environmental Services
XIV

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Norm Blake

University of South Florida 

Marine Science Department

Greg Blanchard

Manatee County Environmental

Management Department 

Hamid Bojd

Ayres Associates

Richard Boler

Environmental Protection

Commission of Hillsborough

County

Bob Brinkmann

University of South Florida 

Geography Department

John Brock

United States Geological Survey

Otto Bundy

Ecogroup International

Corporation 

David Camp

Scientist

Paul Carlson

Fish and Wildlife Research

Institute 

Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Shelly Castro

Tampa Electric Company 

Xinjian Chen

Southwest Florida Water

Management District

Peter Clark

Tampa BayWatch, Inc.

Shawn College

Hillsborough County Planning

Commission

Gary Comp

Environmental Affairs

Consultants, Inc.

Suzanne Cooper

Tampa Bay Regional Planning

Council 

Agency on Bay Management 

Randy Cooper

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

Roger Copp

DHI, Inc.

Catherine Corbett

Charlotte Harbor National

Estuary Program

Frank Courtney

Fish and Wildlife Research

Institute 

Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Alfredo Crafa

City of St. Petersburg

Norton “Mac” Craig

City of Largo, Environmental

Services

Jack Creighton

United States Department of

Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation

Service 

Laura Crouch

Tampa Electric Company

Tom Cuba

Delta Seven, Inc.

Jim Culter

Mote Marine Laboratory

David Dale

National Marine Fisheries

Services

Will Davis

Pinellas County Department of

Environmental Management 

Tom Davis

Eastern Associated Terminals 

Clinton Dawes

University of South Florida

Biology Department

Bruce De Grove

Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC

Robert De Mott

Geo Syntec Consultants

Tommy Denton

Hillsborough County 

Engineering Services

Kellie Dixon

Mote Marine Laboratory

Donald Duke

University of South Florida

Environmental Science & Policy

Department 

Craig Dye

Pinellas County Department of

Environmental Management

Wayne Echelberger

University of South Florida

Civil & Environmental

Engineering Department 

Nick Ehringer

Tampa Bay Education and

Research Foundation

John Emery

Southwest Florida Water

Management District

Ernie Estevez

Mote Marine Laboratory 
XV

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Kent Fanning

University of South Florida

Marine Science Department 

Eric Fehrman

Pinellas County Department of

Environmental Management 

Mario Fernandez, Jr.

United States Geological Survey

Terry Finch

City of Clearwater

Mike Flanery

Pinellas County Health

Department

Sid Flannery

Southwest Florida Water

Management District

Melody Foley

Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC

William Fonferek

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Peter Fowler

Hillsborough County 

Parks & Recreation Department

Lynn French

Florida Power & Light

Company

Chris Friel

Photo Science, Inc.

Boris Galperin

University of South Florida

Marine Science Department

Lynda Garvin

Florida Department of

Agriculture and Consumer

Services

Carl Gerhardstein

CSX Transportation 

Ron Giovanelli

URS Corporation

Steve Grabe

Janicki Environmental, Inc.

Jim Greenfield

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IV

Jim Griffin

Florida Center for Community

Design & Research 

Keith Hackett

Janicki Environmental, Inc.

Penny Hall

Fish and Wildlife Research

Institute 

Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Pamela Hallock Muller

University of South Florida

Marine Science Department

Mark Hansen

United States Geological Survey 

Clifford Hearn

United States Geological Survey 

Kent Hedrick

Florida Power Corporation

Dr. Brandt Henningsen

Southwest Florida Water

Management District

Mike Heyl

Southwest Florida Water

Management District

Ann B. Hodgson

Audubon of Florida

Allen Hubbard

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection 

Industrial Wastewater Section 

Gail Huff

United States Department of

Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation

Service

Charlie Hunsicker

Manatee County

Charles Jacoby

Florida Sea Grant

Tony Janicki 

Janicki Environmental, Inc.

Roger Johansson

City of Tampa Bay Study Group

Daryll Joyner

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

Woo-Jun Kang

Southwest Florida Water

Management District

Marty Kelly

Southwest Florida Water

Management District

Steven Kent

Tree of Life Nursery, Inc.

Charles Kovach

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection 

Raymond Kurz

PBS&J

Joseph LeGath

Environmental Integration

Diana Lee

Environmental Protection

Commission of Hillsborough

County

Tracy Leeser

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
XVI

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Eric Lesnett

Environmental Protection

Commission of Hillsborough

County

Jay Leverone

Mote Marine Laboratory

Roy (Robin) Lewis III

Lewis Environmental Services,

Inc.

Steven Lienhart

URS Corporation

Eric Livingston

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection 

Ed Long

ERL Environmental

Sheri Lovely

Pinellas County Utilities

Heidi Lovett

MRAG Americas, Inc.

Mark Luther

University of South Florida 

Marine Science Department

Michael Marshall

Coastal Seas Consortium, Inc

Bob McConnell

Tampa Bay Water

CeCe McKiernan

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

Bob McMichael

Fish and Wildlife Research

Institute 

Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Dr. Ben McPherson

United States Geological Survey

Gil McRae

Fish and Wildlife Research

Institute 

Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Ron Miller

United States Geological Survey

Kristina Miller

Berryman & Henigar

Jessica Minnick

King Engineering Associates,

Inc. 

Don Moores

Applied Sciences Consulting,

Inc.

E.O. Morris

Mosaic, LLC

Gerold Morrison

Environmental Protection

Commission of Hillsborough

County

Gus Muench

South Shore Diamond Habitat

Award Program

Robert Musser, Jr.

Tampa Port Authority 

Dr. John Ogden

University of South Florida 

Florida Institute of

Oceanography

Joe O’Hop

Fish and Wildlife Research

Institute 

Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Paul O’Neill

Southwest Florida Water

Management District

Ann Paul

Audubon of Florida 

Kevin Petrus

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

Richard Pierce

Mote Marine Laboratory

Joe Plocek

City of Tampa Parks

Department

Amy Poe

Janicki Environmental, Inc.

Noreen Poor

University of South Florida

College of Public Health

Ray Pribble

Janicki Environmental, Inc.

Bryan Pridgeon

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Mark Rains

University of South Florida

Geology Department

Gary Raulerson

Sarasota Bay Estuary Program

Thomas Reese

Attorney

Walt Reigner

BCI Engineers & Scientists, Inc.

Amy Remley

Southwest Florida Water

Management District

Stan Rice

University of South Florida

Biology Department

Carl Riddlemoser

ATC Associates, Inc.
XVII

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Tom Ries

Scheda Ecological Associates

Kevin Riskowitz

City of St. Petersburg

Public Utilities 

Brad Robbins

Mote Marine Laboratory

Doug Robison

PBS&J

Mark Ross

University of South Florida 

Civil & Environmental

Engineering Department

Mike Rowicki

Hillsborough County

Metropolitan Planning

Organization

Randy Runnels

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

Tampa Bay Aquatic Preserves 

Steven Schropp

Taylor Engineering

Gary Serviss

V.H.B

Peter Sheng

University of Florida 

Civil & Coastal Engineering

Department

Gilbert C. Sigua

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Daniel Smith

University of South Florida

Civil & Environmental

Engineering Department

Kathryn Smith

United States Geological Survey 

Robert Soich

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

Mark Sramek

National Oceanic &

Atmospheric Administration 

Tom St. Clair

Parsons Engineering Science,

Inc.

Paul Stanek

Pinellas County Health

Department

Bob Stetler

Environmental Protection

Commission of Hillsborough

County

John Stevely

Florida Sea Grant

Scott Stevens

Kisinger Campo and Associates

Peter Swarzenski

United States Geological Survey 

Dave Tackney

Tackney & Associates, Inc.

Chris Tolbert

Kinder Morgan Bulk 

Terminals, Inc.

Mercily Toledo

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection 

David Tomasko

Southwest Florida Water

Management District 

Sally Treat

TEXT

Gabriel Vargo

University of South Florida

Marine Science Department

Sandra Vargo

University of South Florida

Florida Institute of

Oceanography 

David Wade

Janicki Environmental, Inc.

Mike Walters

Ayres Associates 

Fred Webb

Hillsborough Community

College

Robert Weisberg

University of South Florida

Marine Science Department

Bob Whitman

Peninsula Design &

Engineering, Inc.

Mark Wolff

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Michael Wood

Manatee County Planning

Department

Dave Worley 

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

Kim Yates

United States Geological Survey 

Jay Yingling

Southwest Florida Water

Management District

Hans Zarbock

Berryman & Henigar, Inc.

John Zimmerman

Manatee County Public Works

Department
XVIII

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Tampa Bay Watershed Boundaries and Major Bay Segments

MANATEE CO.

SARASOTA CO.

POLK CO.

St. Petersburg

Tampa

PASCO CO.

PINELLAS CO.

HILLSBOROUGH CO.

Bradenton

Clearwater

More than two million people reside in the 2,200-square-mile Tampa Bay watershed, which reaches into Sarasota,

Pasco and Polk counties. Tampa Bay is Florida’s largest open-water estuary, covering almost 400 square miles. 
1

CHARTING

the COURSE State of the Bay FOR TAMPA BAY

INTRODUCTION

Spanning 400 square miles, with a drainage area nearly six times as large, Tampa

Bay and its watershed stretch from the spring-fed headwaters of the

Hillsborough River to the salty waters off Anna Maria Island. Florida’s largest

open-water estuary harbors a rich and diverse assemblage of plants and animals, along

with a rapidly growing human population that has made the region the second largest

metropolitan area in the state.

In spite of its size, the bay has an average depth of only 11 feet – a troublesome figure

to early commercial boosters who envisioned Tampa Bay as a great commercial harbor. Today, more than 80 miles of deep-water shipping channels – the largest 43 feet

deep – have made that dream a reality. Three seaports now flourish along the bay’s

borders, in Tampa, St. Petersburg, and in northern Manatee County. The largest of

these, the Port of Tampa, consistently ranks among the busiest ports in the nation.

Combined, the three ports contribute an estimated $15 billion to the local economy

and support 130,000 jobs.

Tampa Bay is also a focal point of the region’s premier industry – tourism. The bay

and the sparkling beaches of the surrounding barrier islands attract nearly 5 million

visitors a year. Fort DeSoto Park, at the mouth of Tampa Bay, was named the number

one beach in the continental United States in the 2004 annual survey conducted by

“Dr. Beach,” Professor Stephen Leatherman of Florida International University.

Sport fishing, boating, kayaking and wildlife watching are increasingly popular activities among both visitors and residents – an interest fueled by steady improvements in

water quality that continue to reap ecological benefits. Today, some 40,000 pairs of

wading and shore birds of 25 species nest annually on protected islands in the bay;

one-sixth of the Gulf Coast population of Florida manatees spend the winter near

power plants bordering the bay; and more than 200 species of fish spend some part of

their lives within the Tampa Bay estuary. 

More than 2.3 million people live in the three counties directly bordering Tampa Bay

– Hillsborough, Manatee and Pinellas. That number is expected to grow by nearly 19

percent by the year 2015, as approximately 500 people move to one of those three

counties each week.

With such fast-paced growth, redressing past damage to bay habitats and protecting

them in the future, will remain the greatest challenge for bay managers. Maintaining
2

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

the water quality gains of recent decades will require more effort every year to compensate for increased pollution associated with growth. Actions we take both individually and collectively will increasingly influence the state of the bay.

This chapter explores the progress that has been made in achieving the primary goals

of the original Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay,

and the current status of key indicators of the bay’s health. 

WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY

The amount of algae in Tampa Bay waters, as indicated by chlorophyll a concentrations, has declined dramatically since 1980, thanks to improved wastewater and

stormwater treatment, reductions in industrial discharges, limits on dredging and filling, and removal of several wastewater point sources as extensive water reuse systems

are constructed.

Chlorophyll a is an important indicator of the amount of microscopic algae in the water. This chart shows average annual chlorophyll a concentrations (ug/l) for the four major bay segments. The solid lines indicate the target concentrations

associated with adequate light penetration for seagrass growth in each respective bay segment.

Chlorophyll Concentration Timeline

Old Tampa Bay

Mean Annual Chlorophyll a Concentration

Hillsborough Bay

Mean Annual Chlorophyll a Concentration

Lower Tampa Bay

Mean Annual Chlorophyll a Concentration

Middle Tampa Bay

Mean Annual Chlorophyll a Concentration

Old Tampa Bay

Mean Annual Chlorophyll a Concentration

Hillsborough Bay

Mean Annual Chlorophyll a Concentration

Lower Tampa Bay

Mean Annual Chlorophyll a Concentration

Middle Tampa Bay

Mean Annual Chlorophyll a Concentration

SOURCE: Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County
3

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Stormwater runoff from urban, residential and agricultural lands remains the largest

source of nitrogen, the primary pollutant in the bay. An overabundance of nitrogen can

cause algae blooms and reduce oxygen levels in the bay, resulting in turbid water, fish

kills and loss of seagrass when the water becomes so opaque that sunlight cannot

reach underwater grasses. Stormwater accounted for 63% of total nitrogen loadings to

Tampa Bay from 1999-2003.

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program’s Policy Board, along with TBEP’s Nitrogen

Management Consortium (NMC), a partnership of local governments and private

industries with facilities along the bay, has adopted a goal of maintaining nitrogen

loadings to the bay at the average calculated for the 1992-1994 timeframe. This “hold

the line” approach is expected to foster water quality sufficient to allow continued natural recovery of seagrasses. However, achieving this goal with the continued growth

and associated increases in stormwater runoff projected in the region will require baywide loadings to be reduced by 17 tons per year. Local governments have committed

to assuming a reduction target of 11 tons per year, while industry partners have agreed

to reduce their contributions by 6 tons per year.

As of 2004, projects completed in the Tampa Bay watershed by NMC partners

actually exceeded those reduction goals. Additionally, all major bay segments except

Old Tampa Bay met chlorophyll a targets (a measure of microscopic algae in the

water) with the exception of El Nino years (1997-98 and 2003), providing sufficient

water clarity for seagrass recovery. A separate seagrass recovery plan is being developed for Old Tampa Bay, to identify and remediate causes of continued water quality

problems and seagrass declines there.

The bay narrowly averted a potentially devastating blow in 2001, when Mulberry

Phosphates abandoned its Piney Point fertilizer plant and gypsum stack in northern

Manatee County, forcing the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

to assume operation and cleanup of the facility. The threat of a potential breach in the

gypsum stack holding ponds required DEP to discharge large volumes of nutrient-rich

wastewater into Lower Tampa Bay, resulting in an additional 15 tons of nitrogen loading in one month – more than three times the annual load reduction target for that bay

segment. The crisis was alleviated in 2003, when DEP was granted an emergency permit to disperse treated wastewater from the site into the deeper waters of the Gulf of

Mexico. Closure of the facility is well underway, but future use of the site remains

undetermined. Cleanup costs had reached more than $77 million as of September

2005, prompting DEP to amend the rules pertaining to financial surety of phosphate

companies operating in Florida to avoid a similar situation in the future.

A significant portion of the nitrogen entering the bay, about 21%, comes from atmospheric deposition (air pollution) directly to the bay’s surface, either with rainfall or

dry deposition. Research indicates that power plants and mobile sources (such as

cars) are the primary locally generated sources of airborne nitrogen. New pollution

controls on bay area power plants and conversion of one major plant (Tampa

Electric’s Gannon facility) to fueling by natural gas instead of coal will result in dramatic reductions in nitrogen emissions from these facilities in the next decade.

Cleaner-burning fuels, improved fuel economy standards, expanded mass transit systems and increased telecommuting could mitigate emission increases associated with

motor vehicles.
4

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

15%

Pasture/Range 

Lands

20%

Residential

12%

Agriculture

9%

Commercial/ 

Industrial

1%

Undeveloped 

Land 6%

Mining

Intensive

63%

Stormwater 

Runoff

21%

Atmospheric

Deposition

9%

Municipal 

Wastewater

3%

Industrial

1%

3%

Groundwater

& Springs

Wastewater

Accidental Fertilizer Losses

Total Nitrogen Loadings in Tampa Bay (1999-2003 average)

SOURCE: Poe et al, 2005 
5

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Ensuring that bay waters remain safe for swimming and other recreational uses is vital

to the region’s tourist-dependent economy, as well as to the quality of life for area residents. Local health departments routinely monitor public beaches, and mandate closures when bacteria counts exceed guidelines. Closures occur most often when heavy

rainfall funnels large volumes of stormwater runoff to waters near public beaches, or

when a spill of partially treated wastewater occurs. Recent research has shown that the

traditional indicators of bacterial contamination, E. coli and fecal coliform, may not

be the most suitable barometers of contamination, since both may occur naturally in

warm-water climates. As a result, the use of enterococci as a supplemental and more

reliable indicator is now gaining widespread acceptance.

With the exception of several “hot spots” primarily near ports and other industrial

areas, Tampa Bay sediments remain relatively free of toxic contaminants. TBEP

developed a Tampa Bay Benthic Index that indicates the severity of chemical contamination or hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen) at various sites based on lack of diversity or

abundance of benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms. The benthic index will serve as

the foundation for ranking sites where restoration is needed. 

Using the index, TBEP’s Sediment Quality Assessment Group has identified several

sites where degraded benthic communities were clearly associated with chemical 

contaminants of concern. Priority areas identified by the group for development of

site-specific action plans are the Palm River and McKay Bay; Ybor Channel; West

Davis Islands; East Bay; Largo Inlet; the Westshore area of Tampa; Bayboro Harbor;

and the Apollo Beach/Big Bend area. Assessment of each of these areas began in

2005, and action plans for two will be initiated in 2006. Cleanup efforts may include

dredging of contaminated areas or “capping” them with clean fill.

BAY HABITATS

Tampa Bay boasts a diverse palette of habitats, from open-water rubble and reef communities to lush seagrass meadows and coastal hardwood hammocks.

Estimated losses of nearly half the bay’s wetland habitats since the 1950s led to development of TBEP’s “restoring the balance” strategy to guide restoration efforts. This

approach recognizes that losses of some habitat types, such as low-salinity tidal

marshes (-38%), have been disproportionately greater than for others, such as mangrove forests (-13%). While seeking to maximize recovery of those habitats hardest

hit by development activities, “restoring the balance” also calls for preserving and

enhancing existing mangrove and marsh communities through land acquisition, invasive species eradication and regulatory protections. 

Specific goals for emergent habitat restoration and protection, as incorporated in the

Habitat Restoration Master Plan, are:

• Restore the historic balance of coastal wetland habitats by restoring at least

100 acres of low-salinity habitats every five years.

• Preserve the bay’s 18,800 acres of marsh and mangrove habitat, including

28 priority sites.

• Establish and maintain adequate freshwater flows to the bay and its tributaries. 
6

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

MANATEE CO.

SARASOTA CO.

POLK CO.

S . Petersburg

Tampa 26

10

39

43

48

27

45

36

33

13

37

23

47

PASCO CO.

PINELLAS CO.

HILLSBOROUGH CO.

49

50

51

52

54

56

57

58

Bradenton

Clearwater

4 4

10

12

13

14

17

18

19

20

21

28

24 25

30

42

48

34

35

29

38 32 31

4 4

40

46

22

26

1. Allen’s Creek I & Lancaster Tract

2. Bartlett Park

3. Bayshore Blvd.

4. Boca Ciega Phase 1, 2 & 3

5. Braden River (SR64 & SR70)

6. NE McKay Bay

7. Cargill South Parcel

8. Clam Bayou 1, 2 & 3

9. Cockroach Bay Phases A-B-C-D-E-F

10. Coopers Point

11. Cypress Point

12. Del Oro Park

13. E. G. Simmions Park 1 & 2

14. Emerson Point

15. Gandy Park

16. Howard Frankland/Gateway Tract

17. Harbor Palms Park

18. Hendry Delta Fill

19. Howard Frankland East

20. Joe’s Creek 1 & 2 and Long/Cross Bayou

21. Jungle Prada Park

22. Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal Phase 1 & 2

23. Little Bayou

24. Mangrove Bay 1, 2 & 3

25. MacDill Air Force Base Phase 1 & 2

26. Mobbly Bay & Mobbly Bayou Wilderness Preserve Phase 2

27. Ribbon of Green

28. Osgood Point

29. Peanut Lake

30. Picnic Island

31. Terra Ceia Causeway

32. Terra Ceia Aquatic and Buffer Preserve 1 & 2

33. Wolf Branch Creek Phase 1 & 2

34. Lowry Park

35. The Kitchen: Davis Tract, Schultz Preserve, Dug Creek

36. Apollo Beach

37. Balm Road Marsh

38. South Skyway

39. Polanis Park

40. Braden River 2

41. Ballast Point

42. Fort Brooke

43. South Tampa Greenway/Tappan

44. Palmetto Estuary

45. Reed Property

46. Fort DeSoto Park

47. Largo Central Park Habitat Restoration

48. River Garden Stabilization Study

49. Hillsborough River State Park

50. DeSoto Park Addition Shoreline Restoration

51. Brooker Creek Channel L

52. Brooker Creek Channel F

53. Brooker Creek ELAPP Habitat Restoration

54. Bahia Beach Habitat Restoration

55. Ekker Property Restoration

56. River Tower Shoreline Restoration

57. Eagle Lake Park Wetland Restoration

58. Sweetwater Creek Habitat Restoration

Habitat Restoration Projects in Tampa Bay 2005

SOURCE: SWFWMD 

Legend

Complete

Active

Tampa Bay

Watershed Boundary

SWFWMD

Proposed Parcels

SWFWMD

Acquired Parcels

1

1
7

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

From 1995-2001, more than 378 acres of low-salinity, or oligohaline, habitats were 

restored, far exceeding the original goal of 100 acres every five years. These critically

important areas are vital to the survival of juvenile snook and mullet as well as 

numerous wading birds. A new research initiative, begun in 2005, will quantify 

specific water and sediment quality requirements for oligohaline tributaries of the bay,

particularly small streams and creeks about which little is presently known.

Overall, about 2,350 total acres of marshes, mangroves and other benchmark habitats

were restored in the Tampa Bay ecosystem from 1996-2003, primarily through projects coordinated by the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Surface

Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program. More than 60 percent of the

total restored acres were marshes or mangroves, while 27 percent were coastal

uplands. Pending projects will triple the amount of habitat restored in the next decade,

as larger efforts that provide significant wildlife corridors and emphasize creation of a

“mosaic” of diverse habitat types take shape. 

The Habitat Restoration Master Plan also emphasizes the restoration or protection of

small freshwater ponds in the vicinity of white ibis and other wading bird rookeries,

as the crayfish and frogs found in these ponds are a critical food source for ibis

chicks. Some progress has been made in preserving or restoring freshwater ponds, but

the gains are not fully documented at present.

The Master Plan also identified 28 priority sites for protection to be managed or

restored as necessary, through either direct purchase or other means such as conservation easements on private property. These sites were earmarked “high priority” by the

Southwest Florida Water Management District in the state’s Save Our Rivers and

Florida Forever land-buying programs. A total of 11,494 acres of estuarine habitat was

preserved through acquisition of these top-priority sites by TBEP partners between

1996 and 2003. 

Critical habitats not included in the 1995 Bay Habitat Master Plan are hard-bottom

habitats, including submerged rock or rubble reefs as well as oyster bars. These

important habitats will be included in an updated Master Plan now being developed.

Projects already are underway to map the extent and location of historic oyster bars in

the bay and compare those with existing aerial photographs, and to evaluate the effectiveness of various artificial reef designs currently utilized. 

Improvements in water quality have fueled steady gains in seagrass recovery, averaging about 250 acres per year, over the past two decades. Seagrasses are among the

bay’s most vital habitats, harboring an abundance of sea life. These flowering marine

plants are generally found in waters 6 feet deep or less in Tampa Bay, where sunlight

can penetrate the water column. Seagrass beds are important nursery and feeding

grounds for several commercially and recreationally important species in Tampa Bay,

including shrimp, spotted sea trout, red drum, and snook. 

TBEP and its partners have established a seagrass recovery goal of approximately

12,000 acres, while preserving the bay’s existing 26,000 acres, for a total of 38,000

acres baywide. By 1997, about 4,000 new acres of seagrass were documented.

However, record-setting El Nino rains from 1997-1999 erased some of those gains,

resulting in a loss of about 2,000 acres from nutrient-laden stormwater runoff that

clouded the water. Seagrasses rebounded by about five percent to 26,078 acres in 2002.
8

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

The most recent aerial surveys conducted by the Southwest Florida Water

Management District, assessing changes from 2002 to 2004, show a continued, albeit

slower recovery of 946 acres baywide, or about 4 percent from 2002-2004. Gains

were documented in every bay segment except Old Tampa Bay, where seagrasses

declined by 636 acres, or 12 percent, during this two-year period. 

It is important to note that the 2002-2004 surveys were completed prior to the recordsetting 2004 hurricane season, and do not take into account any impacts from associated wastewater and phosphogypsum stack spills.

The lagging recovery of seagrasses in Old Tampa Bay, and especially a 2,000-acre

area in Feather Sound, remains a key focus of research sponsored by the Tampa Bay

Seagrass Decline and Recovery

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

Seagrass Acres (x 1 000)

1950 1982 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2002 2004

SOURCE: Southwest Florida Water Management District 1988 - 2004

GOAL: Recover an additional 10,976 acres of seagrass over 2004 levels, while preserving the bay’s existing 27,024 acres of seagrass as of 2004; an increase of 946

acres from 2002.

STATUS: Between 1988-1996, seagrass acreage increased an average of 450

acres per year. El Nino rains resulted in seagrass losses of about 2,000 acres

between 1996-1999. In January 2004, seagrass acreage had increased an additional 946 acres, resulting in the highest observed acreage estimate since 1950.
9

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Estuary Program beginning in 2003. Among potential causes of the seagrass declines

are poor water quality, reduced circulation and flushing, and increased epiphytic

growth on grass blades (which can prevent sunlight from reaching the blades), but

studies so far are inconclusive. Solving the puzzle of the seagrass die-backs in Old

Tampa Bay is critical to achieving the baywide seagrass recovery goal set by TBEP. 

Wave erosion from passing ships is also suspected as a culprit in seagrass losses in

some parts of the bay. Historical photos indicate that the presence of natural longshore

sandbars that once existed in many areas may have helped to buffer wave action,

allowing seagrass to flourish in the shallow waters landward of the bars. A pilot project to test this theory was launched in 2005 to reconstruct an experimental longshore

bar along the southeastern shoreline of the bay.

FISH AND WILDLIFE

A spectacular variety of wildlife lives in, above and beside Tampa Bay – from the

familiar brown pelican to the secretive diamondback terrapin to the magnificent tarpon, a premier gamefish.

Wading and shorebirds are among the bay’s most visible inhabitants. Mangrove

islands in the bay support up to 40,000 breeding pairs of 25 species of colonial waterbirds such as herons, ibis and egrets. As many as half breed in Hillsborough Bay.

Many rare or coastal species nesting in Tampa Bay experienced sustained population

increases between 1994-2001, including Reddish Egret, Roseate Spoonbill, American

Oystercatcher, and Caspian, Royal and Sandwich Terns. El Nino rains created

extremely advantageous foraging conditions in 1998, and breeding populations of

some species, such as White Ibis, almost tripled before returning to pre-1998 conditions in 1999.

Beach-nesting birds such as black skimmers and least terns remain vulnerable to

human-related impacts associated with waterfront development and recreational use,

although nesting areas at Egmont Key, Shell Key and other islands have been 

protected in recent years.

Manatees, dolphins and sea turtles are high-profile bay residents. The number of manatees using Tampa Bay has steadily increased in the past decade, likely as a result of

improved habitat and the presence of power plants that provide warm-water refuges

for manatees wintering in the bay. More than 350 individuals have been counted in the

bay in the winter months. About 150 animals are found in the bay in the summer,

when the entire West Coast population is more scattered.

A number of year-round and slow-speed zones have been created in the bay, through

federal, state or local regulation, along with two no-entry areas – the power plant outfalls at Tampa Electric’s Big Bend complex near Apollo Beach and the Bartow plant

owned by Progress Energy at Weedon Island. Extensive shoreline speed zones are in

place in Hillsborough County from Tampa’s Rocky Point area south to the Gandy

Bridge, from the Alafia River to E.G. Simmons Park south of Ruskin, in Terra Ceia

Bay, the Manatee River, and in Pinellas County north of the Courtney Campbell

Causeway to Oldsmar.

Additionally, Pinellas County has implemented seagrass protection zones at Fort
10

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

DeSoto Park, Weedon Island and north of the Courtney Campbell Causeway that also

serve to protect manatees feeding and resting in the shallow grass beds.

More than 850 individual dolphins have been identified in Tampa Bay, but resident

population estimates are closer to 550. Researchers have identified five separate

communities of dolphins in what is a relatively “closed” population strongly rooted to

discrete home ranges within the bay. In fact, photo surveys confirm that a large proportion of dolphins first identified in Tampa Bay in the late 1980s still frequent these

waters. Some individuals are thought to be more than 50 years old.

Although only about 350 sea turtles nest annually on beaches surrounding Tampa Bay

– less than 1% of the average statewide total – this number is nevertheless regionally

significant because it contributes to the diversity of the species as a whole. Nests are

documented annually on the barrier islands off Pinellas and Manatee Counties, with

Egmont Key providing the most pristine nesting beach remaining.

Sea turtles are common inhabitants of the bay itself. Loggerheads are by far the most

numerous, but green, hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley turtles also are found. Adults

forage in the bay, while juveniles shelter there until they are large enough to survive

in the open ocean. Recent research has revealed that Tampa Bay is an important nursery area for young Kemp’s ridley turtles – among the world’s most endangered animals.

Fisheries population estimates as measured by the state’s Fisheries Independent

Monitoring Program since 1989 show species-specific patterns. For example:

• Red drum juvenile abundances peaked in 1991 and 1995, and were

relatively constant from 1996-2001.

• Sheepshead juvenile abundance peaks seem to occur in three-year cycles,

with high recruitment in 1991, 1994, 1997 and 2000.

• Snook juvenile abundance estimates were highest in 1999 and 2000.

• Spotted seatrout juvenile abundance has been relatively stable since 1991.

• Blue crab abundances were lowest in 1990 and highest in 1989, 1992, 1995

and 1998.

DREDGING AND DREDGED 

MATERIAL MANAGEMENT

The Tampa Bay region has developed a long-term plan specifically to address the

issues associated with dredging and dredged material. This plan, a joint effort of the

Tampa Bay Estuary Program and the Army Corps of Engineers, fosters coordination

of dredging and dredged material management to maximize shared placement and

beneficial use opportunities while minimizing the environmental impacts and costs

associated with these activities. The plan is updated from time to time and is the driving force behind several recent pilot projects to explore innovative uses of dredge

spoil.

Currently, dredging to maintain the bay’s nautical channels generates about a million

cubic yards of material each year, enough to fill Raymond James Stadium 10 times.
11

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Grp FWC FWS Comments

Acipenser oxyrhynchus Atlantic sturgeon Fish SSC T* * Applicable only to the subspecies A.o. desotoi 

(Gulf sturgeon)

Rivulus marmoratus Mangrove rivulus; rivulus Fish SSC

Rana capito Gopher (=crawfish) frog Amph SSC

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator Rept SSC T(S/A)

Caretta caretta Atlantic loggerhead turtle Rept T T

Chelonia mydas mydas Atlantic green turtle Rept E E

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Rept E E

(=leathery) turtle

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake Rept T T

Eretmochelys imbriccata imbratica Atlantic hawksbill turtle Rept E E

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher turtle Rept SSC Associated primarily with uplands.

Lepidochelys kempi Atlantic ridley turtle Rept E E

Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Florida pine snake Rept SSC Confined to xeric sites

Pseudemys concinna suwanniensis Suwannee cooter Rept SSC

Stilosoma extenuatum Short-tailed snake Rept T Ranges S to uplands west of Kissimmee River

Ajaia ajaja Roseate spoonbill Bird SSC

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub-jay Bird T T Confined to oak scrub habitat

Aramus guarauna Limpkin Bird SSC

Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris Southeastern snowy plover Bird T

Charadrius melodus Piping plover Bird T T

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland’s warbler Bird E E Migrates through uplands along FL’s coast

Egretta caerulea Little blue heron Bird SSC

Egretta rufescens Reddish egret Bird SSC

Egretta thula Snowy egret Bird SSC

Egretta tricolor Tricolored (=Louisiana) heron Bird SSC

Eudocimus albus White ibis Bird SSC

Falco peregrinus tundrius Arctic peregrine falcon Bird E Migratory

Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American Bird T Primarily observed in sandhill or sand 

kestrel pine-scrub habitats. 

Grus americana Whooping crane Bird SSC T(E/P)

Grus canadensis pratensis Florida sandhill crane Bird T

Haematopus palliatus American oystercatcher Bird SSC

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Bird T T

Mycteria americana Wood stork Bird E E

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown pelican Bird SSC

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Bird SSC E

Polyborus plancus audubonii Audubon’s crested caracara Bird T T

Rynchops niger Black skimmer Bird SSC

Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing owl Bird SSC Prefer open, well-drained areas, such as dry

prairies, canal banks, and road berms.

Sterna antillarum Least tern Bird T

Sterna dougallii Roseate tern Bird T T FL breeding range confined to Keys and

Dry Tortugas.

Felis concolor coryi Florida panther Mamm E E

Podomys floridanus Florida mouse Mamm SSC Restricted to xeric habitats such as interior 

and coastal dunes.

Sciurus niger shermani Sherman’s fox squirrel Mamm SSC Optimal habitat is mature longleaf pine-turkey 

oak sandhills and flatwoods.

Trichechus manatus West Indian (=Florida) Mamm E E

manatee

Ursus americanus floridanus Florida black bear Mamm T*

*Not applicable in Baker and Columbia counties and Apalachicola National Forest

Listed Species of the Tampa Bay Watershed

SOURCE: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 
Much of the sediment dredged during maintenance activities is deposited on two 

manmade spoil islands in Hillsborough Bay. Options for increasing the capacity of

these islands are being studied; however, they eventually will reach capacity and alternatives will be necessary to accommodate the nearly 30 million cubic yards which

will be created through the year 2030. Additional new spoil will be generated as a

result of the Corps’ Tampa and St. Petersburg Harbor Re-evaluation project, which is

evaluating the need for additional navigational improvements to accommodate

increased maritime commerce in the bay.

Finding environmentally useful ways to use the material dredged from the bay bottom

will continue to be a key goal of the CCMP. Among the alternatives to traditional disposal of dredge spoil are: renourishing beaches and stabilizing shorelines; re-filling

abandoned pits to restore tidal wetlands; re-creating longshore bars to aid in seagrass

recovery; and filling of suitable manmade dredged holes in the bay. 

A pilot project coordinated by TBEP and funded by a grant from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency assessed the feasibility of filling dredge holes in the

bay to improve fisheries habitat and encourage seagrass regrowth. Beginning in 2003,

an advisory group convened for the project identified 11 priority dredge holes that

could support seagrasses if filled to surrounding depth. The habitat value of the holes

was then evaluated by a team of scientists to assess the existing fisheries utilization,

benthic diversity and water quality. 

Results from the research project indicated that most of the holes already were providing important habitat for a variety of commercially or recreationally important

species. Water quality in most of the holes also was better than expected. As a result,

the advisory committee recommended leaving 8 of the 11 holes as they are, and partially filling or enhancing three. A clear conclusion of the project is that each hole

must be assessed independently to determine an appropriate management strategy.

Another possible use of dredged material is in the creation of shallow nearshore sandbars to help reduce wave erosion and facilitate seagrass recolonization in the quiet

waters landward of the bars. In 2005, TBEP and a variety of partnering organizations

initiated a multi-year pilot project to design and restore a degraded nearshore bar and

monitor its impacts on surrounding areas. If successful, this project may pave the way

for restoration of additional bars using dredge material of appropriate quality.

Upland disposal options for beneficial uses of dredge spoil also are being employed,

including use of dredged material in habitat restoration projects at Cockroach Bay and

in the Harbor Isles neighborhood of St. Petersburg. Additionally, Port Manatee plans

to use the former state fish hatchery site to dispose of dredged material associated

with port expansion. 

SPILL PREVENTION & RESPONSE

Each year, an average 4 billion gallons of oil and other hazardous substances pass

through Tampa Bay on modern ships the size of skyscrapers. These vessels, bound

predominantly for one of the bay’s three deepwater ports or its many industrial facilities, are joined by a variety of other cargo carriers as well as a rapidly expanding

12

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY
13

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

cruise ship fleet.

Although the potential for a catastrophic spill of petroleum or other toxic substances

remains, significant strides have been made in preventing such an accident, and

improving the region’s overall emergency response readiness. In fact, Tampa Bay has

not suffered a major spill since more than 300,000 gallons of oil were released following a dramatic three-way ship collision at the mouth of the bay in August 1993.

The U.S. Coast Guard’s Area Contingency Plan serves as the guiding blueprint for

spill response, spelling out response protocols, available equipment and personnel,

and environmentally sensitive areas and resources. The ACP is updated every five

years, and was recently converted into an electronic version that allows users immediate, interactive access to critical maps and real-time data. The ACP also incorporates

the GIS-based Florida Marine Spill Analysis System, which allows decision-makers to

direct containment, cleanup and restoration efforts during an actual spill.

These high-tech tools are bolstered by a network of pre-positioned boom, absorbent

pads and other containment and cleanup equipment, placed at or near key sensitive areas

of the bay, such as Cockroach Bay, to ensure rapid deployment should a spill occur. 

The excellent response record of the seabird rehabilitation organization Save Our

Seabirds – which returned to the wild an impressive 85% of the birds rescued and

treated during the 1993 spill – has been further enhanced by a comprehensive volunteer training program and the addition of a mobile hot-water trailer which allows volunteers to mobilize rescue and recovery efforts wherever a spill occurs.

Spill prevention remains a major goal of the region’s maritime and environmental

communities, and here important progress has been made as well. An integrated

Vessel Tracking Information System (VTIS) has been fully implemented in Tampa

Bay, equipping harbor pilots with shipboard laptop computers that provide up-to-theminute displays of ship traffic in the bay’s 44-mile main navigation channel.

Combined with shore-based radar and current weather information, the VTIS provides

the safest available means of navigation for commercial mariners. 

Finally, the Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS), a system of buoys

and sensors that provides real-time weather, wind and current information to both professional and recreational mariners, is now accessible online as well as by phone.

While no permanent source of funding has yet been found for PORTS – which is

maintained by the University of South Florida – the system does have adequate funding from all three bay counties to remain operational through 2008.

Although large spills are by their nature the most visible threat to the bay, smaller

chronic spills may be cumulatively more damaging. These spills occur through careless fueling practices, operation of outboard motors, discharges of oily bilge water and

improper disposal of used oil products. Boater education remains the most effective

long-term strategy for reducing these routine spills. 
14

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Taxonomic Breakdown of Nonindigenous & Cryptogenic Species in 

Greater Tampa Bay

SOURCE: Dr. Patrick Baker, University of Florida

Ascidians

Fish

Plants

Nematodes

Flatworms

Cnidarians

Amphibians

Bryozoans Crustaceans

Mollusks

Barnacles

Pericarids

Crabs

Gastropods

Bivalves

Polychaetes
15

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

INVASIVE SPECIES

Invasive species are plants or animals that have been introduced from another part of

the world into a native, or endemic, ecosystem, resulting in environmental, economic

or human health impacts. Invasives are particularly aggressive and successful species

that can displace and overtake native populations, reducing biodiversity and diminishing biological integrity. According to the World Conservation Union, invasive species

are second only to habitat loss as a cause of extinctions worldwide. 

The 1999 discovery in Tampa Bay of an exotic mussel native to Asian waters reinforced the need for a baywide strategy to address the potential environmental threats

posed by aquatic invasive species. As a result, an Invasive Species Action Plan was

developed and is included in this update of the Comprehensive Conservation and

Management Plan. The plan calls for a two-pronged approach focused on educating

the public about the impacts of invasive species and ways in which residents can help

prevent invasions, and additional research into the extent of the problem in Tampa

Bay.

A literature review and field survey of aquatic nuisance species commissioned by

TBEP in 2002 identified 55 known, suspected or likely marine invaders in the bay.

Additional research has explored the potential for an invasion of Tampa Bay by the

toxic algae, Caulerpa taxifolia Mediterranean strain, concluding that the bay faces a

relatively low risk of introduction of this extremely harmful species at the present

time.

On the other hand, the Asian green mussel (Perna viridis) has rapidly spread throughout the bay and beyond, with recent sightings in northeast Florida, southern Georgia

and northwest Florida. Within one year of its discovery in Tampa Bay, it had spread

south to the Charlotte Harbor estuary system. At first, the mussel colonized primarily

manmade structures such as bridge pilings and docks, but has now been documented

in Tampa Bay in bare sand or mud flats and interspersed with seagrasses. TBEP is

currently sponsoring research into the relationship between the green mussel, water

quality and seagrass recovery in the bay to gain a better understanding of the environmental impacts of this highly successful invader.

The Asian green mussel is thought to have arrived in the bay in ballast water that is

carried in the underbellies of ships to maintain buoyancy on the open sea. In fact, ballast water is a primary avenue through which numerous invasive organisms are

believed to have been transported from one waterway to another. The international

nature of modern-day shipping dramatically increases the potential for marine organisms to “hitchhike” around the globe. Scientists estimate that an average of 40,000

gallons of ballast water is released in U.S. coastal waters every minute.

As many as one-quarter of all the ships entering the Port of Tampa contain ballast

water which may be discharged into Tampa Bay, according to port officials. Several

regional studies are underway to characterize the risk posed by this water, and to test
16

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

treatment and assessment techniques. National regulations approved in 2004, to be

implemented by the U.S. Coast Guard, will require mandatory ballast water treatment

for all commercial ships entering U.S. ports. The most feasible treatment option at

present is open ocean exchange – the discharge of ballast in offshore waters where

high salinity levels dramatically reduce the survival rates of hitchhiking plants or animals.

Significant attention and resources have been devoted to preventing or removing invasive plants in the bay watershed, especially Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and other

coastal invasives. Most bay habitat restoration projects involve eradication of invasive

plants, and private developers also are often required to remove invasives as part of

mitigation for wetland impacts. However, it is highly unlikely that invasives will be

eliminated from all public lands, because of the extent of the problem and the high

cost of removal. 

Several agencies and organizations recently launched an effort to encourage homeowners to remove invasive trees, shrubs and vines in their backyard landscapes, recognizing that even a single plant may serve as a seed source to infest nearby parks and

preserves. TBEP, in partnership with Florida Sea Grant, the Hillsborough Invasive

Species Task Force, the Cooperative Extension Service and others, has produced or

supported the production of a complete package of materials designed to help homeowners identify common invasive plants and teach them safe and effective removal

techniques. The packet includes a seminar presentation, a field guide to invasive

plants, and a video with step-by-step instructions for treatment and disposal of invasives.

Educational initiatives also are being planned for boaters, pet shop owners, aquarium

enthusiasts and others who may unwittingly introduce invasive plants or animals into

the bay system. 
17

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY
18

CHARTING the COURSE:

Goals for improving water and sediment quality include: 

• Preventing increases in the bay’s nitrogen levels to provide

water clarity sufficient to recover 10,976 acres of seagrass. To

accomplish this, local governments and industries will need to

reduce their future nitrogen contributions to the bay by about 

7% by the year 2010, or approximately 17 tons per year.

• Reducing the amount of toxic chemicals in contaminated bay

sediments and protecting relatively clean areas of the bay from

contamination.

• Understanding and addressing the sources and impacts of air

pollution on the bay’s water quality.

• Reducing bacterial contamination now present in the bay to

levels safe for swimming and shellfish harvesting.

STATUS: With the exception of very high rainfall years, water

clarity is meeting site-specific targets in all bay segments except

Old Tampa Bay. Seagrass recovery has been documented in all

areas of the bay except Old Tampa Bay. As of 2004, projects

completed by local government and industry partners in the

Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium actually exceeded

the 17-ton-per year nitrogen reduction goal. 

With one major power plant converted from coal to natural gas,

and extensive pollution control improvements planned at another, a significant reduction in air pollution associated with these

facilities is anticipated. However, research indicates that mobile

sources (cars, trucks, etc.) are a larger component of the air pollution puzzle than previously thought. 

The recently adopted Tampa Bay Benthic Index provides a practical tool for assessing the severity of toxic contamination in the

bay, and identifies priority areas for remediation and cleanup.

New indicators of bacterial contamination adopted by state and

local health officials provide a more accurate assessment of

when swimming beaches should be closed, and ongoing research

is helping to pinpoint chronic problem areas and sources of bacteria.

Goals for improving bay habitats include:

• Recovering an additional 10,976 acres of seagrass over 2004

levels, while preserving the bay’s existing grass beds and

reducing propeller scarring of seagrasses.

• “Restoring the historic balance” of coastal wetland habitats in

Tampa Bay by restoring at least 100 acres of low-salinity tidal

marsh every five years.

• Preserving and enhancing the bay’s 18,800 acres of existing

mangrove/salt marsh habitats.

• Establishing and maintaining adequate freshwater flows to

Tampa Bay and its tributaries.

STATUS: El Niño rains resulted in the loss of 2,000 acres of

seagrass between 1996-1999. By 2002, about 1,237 acres had

recovered, and an additional 946 acres were documented by

2004, resulting in the highest observed acreage estimate since

1950. A total of 2,357 acres of estuarine habitat, including 378

acres of critical low-salinity areas, was restored between 1996-

2003. Additionally, 11,494 acres of existing estuarine habitat,

including 2,261 acres of marshes and mangroves, were preserved through acquisition between 1996-2003.

Minimum flows have been established for the lower

Hillsborough River. Adoption of minimum flows for the upper

Hillsborough, Alafia, Manatee and Little Manatee rivers is

scheduled for 2006 and 2007.

Water & Sediment Quality Bay Habitats

The primary goal for dredging and dredged material management is to:

• Develop a long-term dredging and dredged material management plan for Tampa Bay.

STATUS: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed the

dredged material management plan in 2000. The plan calls for

meeting projected shortfalls in dredge disposal capacity by

boosting the height of the two major existing spoil islands in the

bay, and expanding beneficial use of dredged material for

beach renourishment and habitat restoration projects.

Dredging & Dredged Material

Management
19

Goals for improving fish and wildlife populations

include:

• Increasing on-water enforcement of environmental regulations. 

• Preserving the abundance and diversity of Tampa Bay’s

wildlife.

• Establishing and enforcing manatee protection zones.

• Restoring bay scallop populations in the bay to support

recreational harvests.

STATUS: The merger of fresh and saltwater enforcement agencies within the Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission has expanded the pool of officers trained to enforce both salt and freshwater regulations, and allowed officials to shift resources as needed

to target priority problems. An extensive network of manatee protection zones (both state and local) has been

adopted in Tampa Bay since 2000; posting of these zones

should be completed by 2006. Although new stocking

techniques for bay scallops are being tested, a severe red

tide in 2005 hindered restoration efforts.

Goals for spill prevention and response include:

• Installing a state-of-the-art vessel traffic and information system (VTIS) to improve coordination of ship

movements along the bay’s narrow channels.

• Securing a permanent funding source for the Physical

Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS) of navigational information.

STATUS: VTIS installation is substantially complete,

providing real-time information about shipping traffic to

commercial pilots and the Coast Guard. Since installation, no major oils spills have occurred as a result of

ship-to-ship collisions or groundings. Current contributions from all three bay counties will secure PORTS

funding through 2008.

Fish & Wildlife

Spill Prevention 

& Response

Goals to address impacts from invasive species include:

• Increasing scientific understanding and public awareness

of the bay’s vulnerability to marine bio-invasions.

• Creating an early warning system, utilizing bay managers and citizens, to assist in preventing future bioinvasions.

STATUS: The Asian green mussel, first observed in

Tampa Bay in 1999, has spread throughout the lower bay.

A preliminary assessment of the bay, completed in 2004,

revealed 55 known, suspected or potential marine

invaders. A comprehensive public education program was

launched in 2000 to increase public awareness of the

impacts of invasive plants and animals, and enlist citizen

help in combating them.

Invasive Species

The primary goal for addressing public access to the bay

is to:

• Reduce human and pet waste to ensure the continued

viability of traditional bay recreation areas.

STATUS: This is a new goal, adopted in 2004. Strategies

for addressing this issue are detailed in Action PA-1.

Public Access

Public Education & Involvement

The primary goal for public education and involvement is to:

• Create a constituency of informed, involved citizens who

understand both the environmental and economic value of

Tampa Bay and actively participate in restoring and protecting it. 

STATUS: Priority areas for educational efforts include

Florida-friendly landscaping, stormwater pollution, air pollution, invasive species and bay-friendly boating. A variety

of programs and products have been developed for these

areas, tailored to specific audiences. TBEP distributes an

average of 10,000 educational materials each year.

GOALS & PRIORITIES OF THE TAMPA BAY PLAN
20

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Introduction to 

Action Plans

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program was established in 1991 to assist the community in developing a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan

(CCMP) for Tampa Bay. The original CCMP was adopted in 1996 and contained six Action Plans for bay improvement. This first revision of the Plan incorporates eight Action Plans, addressing:

• Water & Sediment Quality

Nitrogen Management 

Stormwater Runoff

Atmospheric Deposition

Wastewater

Toxic Contamination

Public Health

• Bay Habitats

Freshwater Inflow

• Fish & Wildlife

• Dredging & Dredged Material Management

• Spill Prevention & Response

• Public Education

• Invasive Species

• Public Access

Local government and agency partners of TBEP signed a binding agreement in 1997

pledging to achieve agreed-upon goals for water quality and natural resource recovery,

as well as priorities for spill prevention, fish and wildlife protection, and dredging and

dredged material management. New goals have been adopted in recent years addressing invasive species awareness and prevention, public education and public access.

How those goals are achieved is left largely to individual communities, who may

select from among a range of acceptable alternatives. Many of these options are outlined in the following Action Plans. This approach not only emphasizes flexibility, but

allows local governments to focus their limited resources in the most cost-effective

and environmentally beneficial manner.
21

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Bay Action Plans define the bay’s most pressing needs, and present strategies to

achieve bay goals and maximize the community’s long-term return on investment.

Some actions can be implemented quickly and with existing resources. Others will

require long-term community commitments. 

Action Plans have been developed with assistance from bay experts and advocates

working through TBEP’s management, technical and community advisory committees. Each Action Plan begins with an introduction to the issue followed by appropriate next steps in implementation, as well as a listing of responsible parties and a

timetable for completion.
WQ-1

22

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Water and Sediment

Quality

Tampa Bay is among the most well-studied estuaries in the world, thanks to the cooperative efforts of the multiple governments and agencies engaged in research and sampling

of the bay’s water quality, bottom sediments, fisheries and wildlife.

Photo courtesy of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
23

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY Implement the Nitrogen Management Strategy

for Tampa Bay

ACTION: 

Implement the Nitrogen Management Strategy for Tampa Bay to facilitate recovery of

seagrasses.

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

Controlling the bay’s nitrogen intake as a means to regain vital underwater seagrass

beds has been one of the most prominent initiatives of the Tampa Bay Estuary

Program. Seagrasses were selected as a yardstick by which efforts to improve the bay

are measured because of their overall importance as a bay habitat and nursery, and

because they are an important barometer of their environment, signaling changes in

water quality trends. Excess nitrogen fuels algal growth, robbing underwater grass

flats of the light they need to survive.

A Nitrogen Management Consortium was established in 1996 to address long-term

nitrogen management. The voluntary group, including electric utility, industry and

agricultural representatives along with local governments and regulatory agencies, has

gained national acclaim for its efforts to reduce nitrogen loadings to the bay, above

and beyond requirements of individual entities. In fact, the process has been so effective that it satisfies state and federal requirements for establishing a Total Maximum

Daily Load or TMDL for the bay, thereby achieving through consensus what otherwise would require additional command-and-control regulation. 

The current goal, based on modeling efforts, is to “hold the line” on nitrogen loadings

at 1992-1994 levels to encourage seagrass recruitment. That necessitates a net nitrogen reduction of about 17 tons per year, or 84 tons over 5 years, to offset anticipated

increases associated with population growth in the region. For the period 1995 to

1999, projects completed in the Tampa Bay watershed by TBEP partners actually

exceeded those reduction goals. Additionally, all four major bay segments met

chlorophyll a targets through 2002 with the exception of El Nino years (1997-98 and

2002), providing sufficient water clarity for seagrass recovery. In 2003 and 2004, targets were met in three of four major bay segments – Old Tampa Bay being the exception. 

Local governments agreed to meet that portion of the nitrogen target addressing nonagricultural runoff and municipal point sources in their jurisdictions. The balance is

addressed by partners in the Nitrogen Management Consortium, whose members have

pledged additional action to meet the goal. 

Seagrasses are responding to the management strategy, with an overall gain of 5,371

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

WQ-1
24

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Tampa Bay Decision Matrix

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

2000

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2001

2002

2003

2004

Lower Tampa 

Bay

Middle Tampa 

Bay

Hillsborough 

Bay

Old Tampa 

Bay Year

SOURCE: TBEP

The Decision Matrix provides a quick “report card” on water clarity in the four major

bay segments. The matrix encompasses average annual chlorophyll a and light

penetration measurements from 1975-2004. With the exception of high rainfall years

in 1995 and 1998, water clarity has shown steady improvement in all bay segments

except Old Tampa Bay, where recent declines bear watching.

Legend:

= Not meeting one of the targets (either chlorophyll or light penetration)

= Not meeting chlorophyll a and light penetration targets

= Meeting both targets

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Lower Tampa 

Bay

Middle Tampa 

Bay

Hillsborough 

Bay

Old Tampa 

Bay Year

WQ-1
25

acres since 1982, even after substantial losses in the late 1990s due to El Nino rains.

However, seagrass acreage has been declining in Old Tampa Bay since 1994. Studies

are now underway to help understand the factors involved with successful seagrass

recovery in this bay segment. Basin-specific management plans which include refined

strategies for nutrient and other contamination load management designed for the

characteristics of each basin will be important next steps in maintaining seagrass

recovery baywide.

The TBEP Technical Advisory Committee’s Modeling Subcommittee is also examining the need for an appropriately-scaled loading model, which may take into account

the need for estimating attenuation of nutrients in the watershed and other issues

important for adequately estimating nutrient loading from different sources. The

Modeling Subcommittee is due to complete its recommendations in 2006. TBEP is

scheduled to update the baywide loading model after the Modeling Subcommittee

finalizes recommendations.

This important action calls for tracking nutrient reduction projects through an

electronic database; development of more detailed drainage basin plans; updating the

Tampa Bay watershed loading model; and re-evaluating seagrass recovery and nutrient reduction goals. 

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Populate the electronic database developed by TBEP to effectively track

and quantify nitrogen reduction projects outlined in partner action plans.

Responsible parties: TBEP (database maintenance) and TBEP partners (development and implementation of partner action plans and submittal of information

for database)

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 2 Encourage local government and industry participation in the development

of drainage basin action plans.

Responsible parties: TBEP and Nitrogen Management Consortium

partners

Schedule: Initiate in 2005

STEP 3 Develop numeric targets for chlorophyll a and light attenuation for Boca

Ciega Bay, Terra Ceia and Manatee River.

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: Initiate in 2005

STEP 4 Update the Tampa Bay nutrient loading model following recommendations

of the Modeling Subcommittee. Consider how to include spills in loading

estimates and reduction goals.

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: 2006

STEP 5 Re-evaluate seagrass recovery and nitrogen reduction goals, following

completion of site-specific evaluations in Old Tampa Bay and other areas.

Responsible parties: TBEP and partners

Schedule: 2006

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

WQ-1
26

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Major Drainage Basins Estimated TN Loadings (tons/year and percentage of total) by 

Coastal Old Tampa Bay

73 tons/ 14%

261 tons/ 50%

186 tons/ 36%

2 tons/ 0%

<1 ton/ 0%

<1 ton/ 0%

Total 522 tons

LEGEND

Wastewater Treatment Plants

Stormwater Runoff

Atmospheric Deposition

Industrial Point Sources

Fertilizer Handling Losses

Springs & Groundwater

Coastal 

OTB

Boca Ciega

Bay

Coastal 

MTB

HB

Coastal 

LTB

Terra Ceia

Bay

Manatee River

Boca Ciega Bay 

19 tons/ 7%

178 tons/ 64%

80 tons/ 29%

<1 ton/ 0%

<1 ton/ 0%

<1 ton/ 0%

Total 277 tons

Hillsborough Bay

204 tons/ 39%

270 tons/ 51%

13 tons/ 2%

12 tons/ 2%

28 tons/ 6%

<1 ton/ 0%

Total 525 tons

Coastal Lower Tampa Bay 

1 ton/ 0%

56 tons/ 19%

224 tons/ 77%

9 tons/ 3%

<1 ton/ 0%

<1 ton/ 0%

Total 290 tons

Terra Ceia Bay

5 tons/ 13%

18 tons/ 47%

15 tons/ 40%

<1 ton/ 0%

<1 ton/ 0%

<1 ton/ 0%

Total 38 tons
27

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Source and Major Basin 1999-2003

Hillsborough River

Alafia River

Little Manatee River

Little Manatee River

1 ton/ 0%

345 tons/ 69%

139 tons/ 28%

13 tons/ 3%

<1 ton/ 0%

<1 ton/ 0%

Total 498 tons

Hillsborough River

19 tons/ 4%

290 tons/ 65%

48 tons/ 11%

3 tons/ 1%

<1 ton/ 0%

85 tons/ 19%

Total 445 tons

Coastal Middle Tampa Bay

28 tons/ 10%

120 tons/ 45%

119 tons/ 44%

1 ton/ 1%

<1 ton/ 0%

<1 ton/ 0%

Total 268 tons

Alafia River

19 tons/ 4%

372 tons/ 69%

30 tons/ 6%

74 tons/ 14%

<1 ton/ 0%

42 tons/ 8%

Total 537 tons

Manatee River

23 tons/ 3%

662 tons/ 91%

39 tons/ 5%

7 tons/ 1%

<1 ton/ 0%

<1 ton/ 0%

Total 731 tons

SOURCE: Poe, et al (2005)
28

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Reduce Pollution from Recreational Boaters 

ACTION: 

Reduce pollution associated with recreational boating in the bay.

STATUS: 

This action is a consolidation of actions TX-3 (Reduce toxic contaminants from ports

and marinas; SP-3 (Improve fueling and bilge-pumping practices among pleasure

boaters); and PH-3 (Install additional sewage pump-out facilities for recreational

boaters and live-aboards).

BACKGROUND:

Significant progress has been made in implementing all three of the actions that are

consolidated here. Among the accomplishments:

Twelve marinas in Pinellas, three in Manatee and one in Hillsborough have been designated Clean Marinas under the FDEP program. 

FDEP estimates that about 17-18% of the marinas in Tampa Bay now have pump-out

facilities, slightly higher than the 16.5% of marinas statewide. Pinellas ranks third in

the state in the number of marinas receiving pump-out grants for the years 1994-1998,

with 19 completed or under construction. Hillsborough and Manatee counties have not

been as proactive in seeking grants, although one marina in Manatee and two in

Hillsborough took advantage of the grant program. Additionally, all new marinas are

now required to have pump-outs, as well as all designated Clean Marinas. 

TBEP has assisted in promoting both the Clean Marina Program, and the Clean Vessel

Act grant program, and in making local governments aware of these programs so they

could help promote participation. TBEP also already provides a wealth of information on clean boating to area marinas and individual boaters upon request.

TBEP’s Manatee Awareness Coalition (MAC) has expanded its mission to encompass

a broader “bay-friendly boating” message, and created “new boater” packets in 2005

that include information on safe fueling, bilge pumping and a variety of other issues.

Additionally, TBEP regularly contributes educational articles about bay-friendly boating

to a new magazine, Boaters i, which is direct-mailed to some 15,000 boaters in the bay

area – providing another forum for distributing information about clean boating practices.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Continue to promote FDEP’s Clean Marina Program to area marinas, particularly in Hillsborough County, where participation in the program is lagging.

Responsible parties: FDEP, local governments, TBEP

Schedule: Ongoing

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

WQ-2
29

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY STEP 2 Encourage greater participation in the Clean Vessel Act grant program,

which provides financial assistance to older marinas for installing sewage

pump-outs.

Responsible parties: FDEP, local governments, TBEP

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 3 Evaluate feasibility of distributing bilge socks to area boaters as a method

of reducing fuel and oil spills from recreational vessels.

Responsible parties: FDEP, local governments, TBEP, Coast Guard

Auxiliary 

Schedule: If funds are available, distribution could begin in 2005-

2006.

STEP 4 Encourage the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary and Power Squadron to include

information about safe fueling, bilge pumping, and bay-friendly boating in

their Safe Boating Courses.

Responsible parties: TBEP’s Manatee Awareness Coalition

Schedule: The MAC could revise its “Minute for Manatees” curriculum in FY 2005, for inclusion in Safe Boating Courses

thereafter.

STEP 5 Continue to distribute existing boater education materials, such as the

Clean Boating Habits booklet and the Boaters’ Guide series, and develop

new materials as needed to target new concerns or to reinforce existing

messages.

Responsible parties: TBEP, FDEP, FWC, local governments, Coast

Guard Auxiliary

Schedule: Ongoing

ACTION PLAN

WQ-2

Water & Sediment Quality
30

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Continue Support for the Florida Yards &

Neighborhoods Program and Similar Pollution

Prevention Initiatives

ACTION: 

Support the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program and similar pollution prevention

initiatives.

STATUS: 

Complete. Continue to monitor implementation.

BACKGROUND:

The Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program encourages homeowners to utilize

Florida-friendly gardening concepts that save water and reduce use of pesticides and

fertilizers. FY&N encourages homeowners to water efficiently, mulch, recycle and

select the least toxic pest control measures; put the right plant in the right spot; fertilize only when necessary; provide food, water and shelter for wildlife; protect surface

water bodies (i.e., bays, rivers, streams, ponds); and minimize stormwater runoff.

The Indian River Lagoon, Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay National Estuary Programs

were among the original developers of this innovative program, in partnership with

the University of Florida’s Extension Service. As of 2005, 40 of Florida’s 67 counties

have implemented a FY&N program, and three more were expected to join the program by the end of 2005.

Locally, FY&N programs are active in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Manatee and Pasco

counties, with full-time coordinators implementing a variety of initiatives. Manatee

County’s FY&N coordinator has worked successfully with developers in Sarasota and

Manatee counties, while programs in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties have focused

on individual homeowners, and even partnered with retailers such as Home Depot to

distribute FY&N materials. The Hillsborough and Pinellas programs also are partnering with Tampa Bay Water and the Southwest Florida Water Management District to

implement the Water-Wise Awards program, which recognizes water-efficient landscapes created by homebuilders as well as homeowners. Regionally, the Department

of Environmental Protection recommends the use of FY&N concepts for

Developments of Regional Impact.

Local FY&N programs also are at the forefront of efforts to educate residents about

invasive plants and proper eradication and control techniques.

Advisory committees composed of water conservation and landscape professionals as

well as educators set priorities for the local programs annually.

Additionally, a variety of other local government or agency initiatives promote water

quality stewardship and pollution prevention to both children and adults, including: 

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

SW-1
31

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

• Hillsborough County’s Officer Snook and Adopt-A-Pond programs

• The Museum of Science and Industry’s Marine Gang 

• The Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Clean Marina and Pollution

Prevention (P2) programs, targeting specific businesses or industries.

• The Florida LakeWatch program, which trains lakefront residents to monitor water

quality and reduce residential impacts to lakes.

TBEP should continue to support these existing programs as needed, assist in developing common reporting protocols for assessing the nitrogen reduction benefits of such

programs, and encourage greater business and industry participation.

STRATEGY: 

STEP 1 Continue to support FY&N programs in Hillsborough, Manatee and

Pinellas counties, and assist in promoting and assessing the program by:

• Working with the Extension Service and local governments to develop

common reporting protocols that better assess the impact of the program

on reducing nutrient loads – such as mapping locations of participating

households and total acres implementing FY&N, and estimating corresponding reductions in nitrogen loading. 

• Encouraging more FY&N and pollution prevention education outreach to

businesses, including builders, developers, and irrigation and landscaping

specialists. (see Action SW-2)

• Emphasizing economic as well as environmental benefits of the Program.

Coordinate with local and federal government Brownfields, Grayfields

and Brightfields programs to optimize funding opportunities.

• Requesting information on how FY&N concepts are being implemented

for publicly owned properties, such as government office complexes,

parks, etc.

Responsible parties: Extension Services of Hillsborough, Pinellas and

Manatee counties; TBEP

Schedule: Program ongoing. Initiate reporting protocols and other

assessment tools in 2005.

ACTION PLAN

SW-1

Water & Sediment Quality
32

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Assist Businesses in Implementing Best

Management Practices to Reduce Stormwater

Pollution, and Develop Model Landscaping

Guidelines for Commercial Use

ACTION: 

Assist businesses in implementing best management practices (BMPs) to reduce

stormwater pollution, and develop model landscaping guidelines for commercial use.

STATUS: 

Complete. Continue to monitor implementation.

BACKGROUND:

This action appears to be complete as written. The Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Bay Area counties all have active Pollution

Prevention programs that provide voluntary, non-regulatory assistance with environmental compliance issues to local businesses. 

Among the accomplishments:

• Several local P2 programs have expanded to include erosion and sedimentation from

building sites as a priority issue for assistance in promoting best management 

practices (BMPs) to protect Tampa Bay and its tributaries from siltation and runoff 

associated with construction.

• The state Clean Marina Program requires marinas to implement BMPs for 

stormwater management as part of the “Clean Marina” designation process.

• FDEP is partnering with Enterprise Florida to provide services and assessments for

manufacturing companies, and identify opportunities for businesses to implement

self-audits and strategies for pollution prevention and waste minimization.

• The Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) of Hillsborough County operates

an active Small Quantity Generator program. From January 2001-December 2004,

the program performed on-site visits to approximately 3,166 businesses. In addition

to verifying potential hazardous waste generators in Hillsborough County, these

inspections provide an opportunity for EPC staff to discuss proper waste handling

practices as well as require cleanup efforts for those facilities with environmental

violations. EPC also mailed 56,000 notification fact sheets to affected businesses,

and disseminated more than 10,000 pieces of related literature encouraging more

efficient irrigation, use of Integrated Pest Management, and wise fertilizer use.

Additionally, EPC has signed Interlocal Agreements with Hillsborough County and

the City of Tampa to assist in the reporting requirements of their stormwater-related

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. Negotiations are currently

underway with the City of Temple Terrace to establish a similar Interlocal Agreement.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

SW-2
33

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

• The Southwest Florida Water Management District, in cooperation with the other

Water Management Districts, has completed a landscape ordinance model. Several

local governments have adopted some elements of this model. Local governments in

general have become stricter in landscaping requirements for new commercial buildings as a result of prolonged drought, and several now restrict the amount of turf

grass that can be installed.

• Best management practices for the landscape industry have been revised statewide,

and now encourage more efficient irrigation, use of Integrated Pest Management,

and wise fertilizer application. 

To more accurately quantify implementation of this action, there is a need to collect

information from local governments on the number of businesses using BMPs for

stormwater treatment and landscaping for inclusion in the CCMP action plan database.

Targeting outreach assistance to individual business with repeated violations or 

problems might also be effective.

STRATEGY: 

STEP 1 Request quantifiable information on the number of businesses using BMPs

for stormwater treatment and landscaping for inclusion in the CCMP action

plan database. 

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: Initiate in 2005

STEP 2 Ensure that BMPs being recommended are consistent among federal, state

and local government agencies.

Responsible parties: federal, state and local agencies with P2 

programs, through ABM or TBEP TAC

Schedule: 2006

STEP 3 Emphasize economic incentives of P2 programs for specific businesses and

industries.

Responsible parties: agencies with P2 Programs, TBEP

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 4 Request information from local governments on illicit stormwater discharge

violations, to better target program to those sectors experiencing the greatest incidence of violations.

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: 2006

STEP 5 Encourage the use of the “Florida Green Industries Best Management

Practices for Protection of Water Resources in Florida” developed by the

multi-agency effort of FDEP, FDACS, DCA, water management districts,

UF and many private industry partners.

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 6 Consider a “Bay Friendly Business” certification.

Responsible parties: Local governments, SWFWMD, FDEP, TBEP

Schedule: Initiate in 2006

ACTION PLAN

SW-2

Water & Sediment Quality
34

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Encourage Local Governments to Adopt

Integrated Pest Management Policies and

Implement Environmentally Beneficial

Landscaping Practices

ACTION: 

Encourage local governments to adopt integrated pest management policies to reduce

chemical use and implement environmentally beneficial landscaping practices.

STATUS: 

Complete. Continue to monitor implementation

BACKGROUND:

This action is complete as written in the original CCMP. All local governments are

actively utilizing IPM techniques in management of public lands, and all local 

governments have installed low-maintenance native or drought-tolerant landscapes in

a variety of public areas.

For example:

• All local governments now employ IPM techniques on public lands to some extent. 

Hillsborough County and the City of Tampa adopted a formal resolution requiring 

the use of IPM on all county or city-owned lands. Clearwater also requires use of 

least-toxic pesticides and slow-release fertilizers by contractors that perform mainte

nance on city-owned bodies of water.

• Several local governments sponsored seminars in IPM utilization or sent employees 

to free IPM training provided by the Cooperative Extension Service through a grant 

from the Florida Department of Transportation’s NPDES Stormwater Task Force.

• Florida Yards demonstration projects have been created at several public facilities, 

including a post office in Tampa, roadway medians in Pinellas and Hillsborough 

counties, the Pinellas Trail easement, TECO’s Manatee Viewing Center, and the 

County Center complex in Tampa. Manatee Community College also incorporated 

FY&N landscape and maintenance concepts throughout its campus.

• All local governments utilize native and drought-tolerant plants wherever possible at 

their park properties, as well as on road easements and street medians. 

However, there is a need for additional education, particularly of city, county and state

road maintenance crews, to ensure that road easements and ditches are not mowed or

sprayed indiscriminately. 

One successful model appears to be the Invasive Species Task Force in Hillsborough

County, which originally was established by the Hillsborough County Commission to

ACTION PLAN

SW-3

Water & Sediment Quality
35

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

foster communication and cooperation among intergovernmental departments with

regard to exotic species control. Members include Parks and Recreation, Resource

Management, Solid Waste, Mosquito Control and Highway departments. These departments work together on invasive plant removal projects on county-owned properties. 

The Task Force has expanded its membership to include interested citizens, non-profit

and educational groups, and launched an aggressive public outreach campaign in

which TBEP has played a major role. For example, TBEP has sponsored several

“Give A Day For The Bay” invasive plant workdays with the Task Force utilizing citizen-volunteers working in partnership with city and county personnel to remove invasive plants from county parks and preserves. Additionally, TBEP provided funding in

2003 for a field guide to invasive plants in Tampa Bay, targeted at both homeowners

and professionals. Upcoming Task Force projects include a video being produced by

the Hillsborough Extension Service and TBEP showing homeowners how to remove

invasive trees, vines and shrubs from their landscapes, and a series of homeowner

seminars on invasive plant identification and eradication.

STRATEGY: 

STEP 1 Ensure that all state, city and county personnel using herbicides are practicing IPM.

Responsible parties: SWFWMD, DEP, local governments

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 2 Consider ways to incorporate economic incentives and ensure consistency

in implementation of IPM programs.

Responsible parties: Local governments

Schedule: Initiate next steps in 2005

STEP 3 Survey local governments to determine the extent to which IPM practices

are being implemented by road maintenance crews.

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: 2006

STEP 4 Promote benefits of IPM to water quality in ponds, lakes and streams as

well as landscapes, possibly through the LakeWatch, StreamWater Watch

and Adopt-A-Pond programs.

Responsible parties: local volunteer water monitoring programs

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 5 Emphasize the connection between pesticide and herbicide use and contamination of bay sediments.

Responsible parties: FY & N Programs, local citizen-based water

monitoring programs, TBEP

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 6 Explore how IPM education programs can be delivered to commercial pesticide applicators more effectively.

Responsible parties: County Extension Services

Schedule: Initiate in 2005

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

SW-3
36

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Enforce and Require the Timely Completion of

the Consent Orders for the Cleanup of Fertilizer

Facilities in the East Bay Sector

ACTION: 

Enforce and require the timely completion of the consent orders for the cleanup of fertilizer facilities in the East Bay section of Tampa Bay.

STATUS: 

Nearly complete. Incorporate monitoring of nitrogen loading and water quality data

for fertilizer facilities in East Bay and upper Hillsborough Bay into WQ-1, as part of

the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Strategy. 

BACKGROUND:

In 1990, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the

Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) of Hillsborough County discovered that

five fertilizer-shipping facilities in the East Bay area were discharging high levels of

nutrients into the bay. Subsequent investigations determined that fertilizer product

spillage from these facilities was affecting the Bay, and that associated stormwater

runoff was not meeting current water quality standards.

Following lengthy negotiations, the five terminal facilities entered into joint consent

orders with FDEP and EPCHC in late 1991. The consent orders included requirements for regular sampling of stormwater discharges, assessments of wastewater flows

and concentrations at the facilities, and sediment sampling at the facilities and around

adjacent loading docks. After completing an assessment phase, the facilities were to

implement comprehensive best management practices (BMPs) to curtail product

spillage and reduce nutrient-enriched discharges.

Four of the five companies resolved the associated consent orders and currently operate under FDEP industrial wastewater permits, which include ongoing monitoring

requirements. Environmental agencies report significant nutrient reductions in the

East Bay sector as a result of the BMPs that have been implemented, and the percent

of nitrogen delivered to the Bay from the facilities has dropped from 7% of the total

load in 1992-1994 to approximately 1% or less of the total load in 1999-2003.

One company remains under consent order, though FDEP is working with the facility

to secure compliance and place it under a valid operating permit pending resolution of

TMDL limits for nitrogen in eastern Tampa Bay.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Resolve final active consent order and complete implementation of

stormwater management systems at all associated facilities. 

Responsible parties: FDEP

Schedule: 2005

ACTION PLAN

SW-7

Water & Sediment Quality
37

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

STEP 2 Continue the monitoring and reporting of nitrogen loadings from fertilizer

facilities (along with other point source discharges) as an element of the

Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Strategy (WQ-1).

Responsible parties: Fertilizer terminal operators, EPCHC, FDEP,

TBEP

Schedule: Ongoing

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

SW-7
38

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Encourage Use of Best Management Practices

(BMPs) on Farms

ACTION: 

Encourage implementation of effective best management practices (BMPs) on farms.

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

Implementation of effective best management practices, or BMPs, can help farmers

reduce impacts to soil and water resources while maintaining economically viable

crop production levels. BMPs generally include a broad array of structural and nonstructural approaches to conserving water and reducing fertilizer and pesticide use. 

Based on nitrogen loading estimates for 1995 – 1998, a period of major El Nino storm

events, intensive agriculture accounts for about 12% of the bay’s total nitrogen loadings. Whereas nitrogen loading from agricultural sources has decreased in some areas

of the watershed due to improved irrigation and fertilization practices, public acquisition of former cropland, and reduction in the number of dairies, loadings from localized areas of south Hillsborough and Manatee counties are still significant.

While recommended practices exist – and are promoted — for virtually every commodity, there are relatively few BMPs adopted by rule for this region. To date, BMP

manuals have been published for the horticulture or green industry; cow/calf operations; silviculture; aquaculture; agrichemical handling; and for citrus in the Indian

River Lagoon region. A BMP manual on row crops entitled “Water Quality/Quantity

Best Management Practices for Florida Vegetable and Agronomic Crops Manual,”

2003 edition, was finalized in 2004. 

The 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act provides a means for the agricultural

community to satisfy federally mandated water quality targets. Farmers and growers

that voluntarily implement BMPs receive a “presumption of compliance” for helping

meet Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in impaired watersheds. The Legislation

directs the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) to

develop and publish BMP manuals in cooperation with commodity groups and the

University of Florida Institute for Food & Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). Participating

farmers choose from a menu of approved BMPs, and then sign a notice of intent to

implement them. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) verifies the effectiveness of those BMPs and the grower is presumed compliant and eligible for cost-share monies. DEP and FDACS submitted a report to the Legislature in

2005 detailing progress and participation in the voluntary program. A sufficiency

review of the progress report to be conducted by the Florida Legislature may provide

a strong incentive for increased participation by agriculture in the Tampa Bay

Nitrogen Management Consortium.

ACTION PLAN

SW-8

Water & Sediment Quality
39

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

While the program is still evolving, particularly in Tampa Bay where established

BMPs are lacking for certain commodity groups, overall participation is good in commodities and regions where BMPs exist. For participating growers, presumption of

compliance relieves them of having to satisfy more stringent regulations and opens the

door to cost-share funding that makes it feasible to implement new technologies. The

Agricultural Lands and Practices Act adopted by the 2003 Florida Legislature provides that local governments may not adopt ordinances or policies regulating farm

operations if the activity is already regulated through best management practices or by

an existing state, regional, or federal regulatory program. The Act does not apply to

existing regulations.

The Southwest Florida Water Management District, in cooperation with FDACS, has

developed an innovative, cost-share program with the agricultural community known

as Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems, or FARMS. The program

offers farmers grant money to encourage utilization of BMPs that can, if effectively

applied, foster efficient irrigation and help reduce wasteful irrigation runoff. This prototype program is currently fully funded by the Manasota and Peace River Basin

Board, but could be expanded to other basins including the Southern Water Use

Caution Area to enhance participation and environmental protection.

Incentives to farmers other than financial ones have been proposed from time to time

to encourage implementation of BMPs. For example, a program that streamlined and

consolidated permitting and monitoring requirements in exchange for a commitment

to implement effective BMPs and other environmentally sound practices could be an

attractive supplement to financial support programs for agriculture. The Aquaculture

Certification Program recently adopted by FDACS includes various incentives for

aquafarmers to implement BMPs and might serve as a model farm certification program for other commodity groups in the Tampa Bay watershed. 

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Ensure base-level utilization of agricultural Best Management Practices

(BMPs) in accordance with the process and principles outlined in the 2001

FDEP “Report to the Governor and the Legislature on the Allocation of

Total Maximum Daily Loads in Florida.” The BMP manual for row crops,

a key commodity group in the Tampa Bay watershed, is now being finalized.

Responsible parties: FDACS and FDEP; TBEP TAC and NMC (for

review)

Schedule: Report to Legislature submitted in 2005; sufficiency

review pending

STEP 2 Encourage regional cost-sharing programs for implementing BMPs, including grower investment, low-interest loans and grants, and other incentives

to make implementation of BMPs more affordable. Explore expansion of

SWFWMD’s FARMS cost-sharing program (currently funded by

SWFWMD and FDACS) beyond the Manasota and Peace River Basin

Board boundaries.

Responsible parties: SWFWMD

Schedule: Ongoing

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

SW-8
40

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

STEP 3 Improve rules and procedures for monitoring compliance with Agricultural

Ground and Surface Water Management Plans and other voluntary programs. Consider cross-training agency staff to help streamline and improve

compliance monitoring of voluntary programs.

Responsible parties: FDACS, SWFWMD and FDEP

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 4 Evaluate the merits of a farm certification program that streamlines and

consolidates permitting and monitoring requirements in exchange for a

commitment to implement effective BMPs and other environmentally

sound practices.

Responsible parties: FDACS

Schedule: By 2006

STEP 5 Conduct workshop to inform the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management

Consortium of various water quality improvement programs available to

agriculture, particularly those that could contribute to nitrogen load reduction.

Responsible parties: TBEP and Nitrogen Management Consortium

Schedule: Conducted in 2005

ACTION PLAN

SW-8

Water & Sediment Quality
41

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Design and Implement A Low Impact

Development Strategy

ACTION: 

Design and implement a strategy to promote Low Impact Development. 

STATUS: 

New action consolidating actions SW-4, SW-5, SW-6 and actions to improve habitat

and wildlife benefits of stormwater ponds as recommended by the Community

Advisory Committee.

BACKGROUND:

Low Impact Development (LID) is an innovative stormwater management approach

based on managing rainfall at the source using uniformly distributed, decentralized

controls. The goal of LID is to mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology by using

design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff close to its

source. LID addresses stormwater through small, cost-effective landscape features

located at the lot level. LID is a versatile approach that can be applied equally well to

new development, urban retrofits, and redevelopment/revitalization projects. Low

Impact Development is a logical approach to integrating three currently separate

actions in the Stormwater Action Plan of the CCMP: reducing impervious surfaces

(SW-4); meeting current stormwater standards on redeveloped properties (SW-5); promoting compact urban development (SW-6); and a CAC proposal to enhance the habitat and wildlife benefits of stormwater ponds.

Reduce impervious paved surfaces (SW-4): Impervious paved surfaces dramatically

increase the flow of pollutant-laden stormwater runoff to the bay. While incorporating

pervious paving in parking lots may not be as cost-effective as standard pavement,

other design features – such as small swales, berms and gardens, using grass or gravel

for overflow parking, and generally avoiding direct connection of impervious surfaces

to pipes – can produce a significant payback.

The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) has conducted an

evaluation of stormwater research projects the District has constructed since 1989.

Preliminary results of monitoring runoff from the 11.5-acre Florida Aquarium parking

lot show substantial reductions in runoff, even after accounting for dryer than normal

conditions. Almost all stormwater was retained on site, based on comparisons of the

volume of water discharged from various elements in the treatment train (swales,

strands and ponds). Researchers estimate that discharge would have occurred only

four to five times during a normal year, and in greatly reduced amounts. 

Results from the Florida Aquarium research project indicate that permeable paving

reduces runoff from small rain events, although swales are more effective overall for

reducing runoff, and asphalt pavement is a significant source of metals and PAHs.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

SW-10
42

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

The general consensus is that there are important opportunities to significantly reduce

runoff from parking lots, with minimal or no impact on parking space, by incorporating cost-effective, alternative designs. That effort is aided by significant advances in

BMP technologies and options in the past decade since the TBEP study was 

completed, along with a flourishing low impact design movement.

Meeting current stormwater standards on redeveloped properties (SW-5): 

While this action appears complete as written in the CCMP, it will be important to

monitor stormwater treatment requirements for redevelopment in local government

comprehensive plans and regulations to assure their adequacy.

All six TBEP local government partners indicate that they require stormwater treatment, or equivalent compensation, during redevelopment where new construction

exceeds 3,000 square feet. Additionally, existing environmental resource permitting

(ERP) rules require redevelopment to comply with stormwater rules in effect at the

time of redevelopment.

Promote compact urban development (SW-6): 

TBEP, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection conducted a workshop in May 2004 to explore issues and

opportunities associated with Low Impact Development. The workshop concluded that

LID practices such as grassed swales, permeable paving, cisterns, rain gardens and

other features may enhance stormwater treatment and storage, but that cost-benefit

assessments of these techniques are lacking. A key recommendation was to conduct a

side-by-side comparison of traditional versus LID techniques through a demonstration

project. This workshop fulfilled the call for a Future of the Region conference in the

original SW-6 Action.

A LID Design and Development Workshop also was conducted in April 2005 by

Pascowildlife, Inc. and the Southwest Florida Water Management District. More than

80 workshop participants were trained by Larry Coffman, P.E., a recognized expert in

LID technologies, in the principles and successful practices of Low Impact

Development. At least 26 issues – real and perceived – impeding the implementation

of LID in Florida and the nation were examined. The issues ranged from mosquito

breeding in ponded areas and groundwater contamination to the need for more

research to determine the effectiveness of LID practices.

Enhance the water quality and wildlife benefits of stormwater ponds: 

The TBEP Community Advisory Committee recommended that the Management and

Policy Boards consider several actions addressing the landscaping design and maintenance of stormwater detention ponds in the urban environment to improve water quality and expand habitat of native wildlife. The actions included: (1) requiring that new

wet detention ponds be planted with native vegetation; and (2) requiring that new wet

detention ponds include shallow littoral shelves wherever possible. A survey of local

government and agency stormwater managers in the Tampa Bay area revealed that

SWFWMD stormwater regulations already require creation of shallow littoral shelves

on new wet detention ponds. However, SWFWMD rules and most local stormwater

management ordinances do not require that native plants be planted along the pond

shoreline.

ACTION PLAN

SW-10

Water & Sediment Quality
43

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Conduct a workshop on Low Impact Development (LID) co-sponsored by

the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and prominent representatives

of the development community. The purpose of the workshop will be to

examine the principles and practices of LID and to determine if there is

sufficient support at local government staff and policy-making levels and

interest within the development community to pursue implementation of

LID practices in the Tampa Bay region.

Responsible parties: TBRPC, TBEP

Schedule: Completed in May 2004

STEP 2 Conduct a side-by-side demonstration project of LID versus conventional

stormwater management techniques to quantify costs and benefits, incorporating long-term operational and maintenance costs. 

Responsible parties: TBEP, FDEP and other appropriate partners

Schedule: Identify project site and public/private partners by the end

of 2006; construct demonstration project by 2008.

STEP 3 Incorporate elements of Low Impact Development specifically pertaining

to stormwater management into the Strategic Regional Policy Plan; local

government comprehensive plans; local development and redevelopment

codes and stormwater management ordinances; and long-range transportation plans as needed. Include flexibility and incentives in those documents,

where appropriate, to encourage developers to utilize LID features and

alternatives for commercial and residential developments – particularly for

parking areas — without lengthy permitting delays.

Responsible parties: Local governments through EAR process; FDEP

for rule revision if appropriate.

Schedule: Initiate in 2005

STEP 4 Package and promote Low Impact Development practices through professional engineering and development associations.

Responsible parties: Professional engineering associations, such as

the Florida Stormwater Programs Association;

homebuilder associations

Schedule: Following completion and monitoring of side-by-side

comparison pilot project (STEP 2). 

STEP 5 Monitor implementation of LID strategies through updates by TBEP partners in their local action plans. Also, monitor implementation of local government ordinances requiring older properties being redeveloped to meet

current stormwater treatment standards for that portion of the site being

redeveloped, or provide equivalent compensation.

Responsible parties: TBEP local partners

Schedule: Following integration of LID practices in local comprehensive land use plans and land development codes. 

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

SW-10
44

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Expand the Adopt-A-Pond Program to

Additional Communities

ACTION:

Expand the Adopt-A-Pond Program developed by Hillsborough County to additional

communities to assist homeowners in maintaining and improving residential stormwater ponds.

STATUS:

New action.

BACKGROUND:

State and local regulations require that new stormwater ponds be designed and constructed to maximize their ability to retain and treat stormwater runoff before it is discharged to a larger waterway and, ultimately, to Tampa Bay. In fact, well-constructed

and properly maintained stormwater ponds are essential to preserving water quality in

Tampa Bay. They also serve an important secondary role for wildlife, by providing

feeding and breeding areas for birds, amphibians and other creatures in urban areas

where natural habitats are rapidly disappearing.

However, long-term maintenance of the ponds to ensure that they continue to provide

these ecological benefits is a widespread problem. Typically, ponds in new developments are deeded to a homeowners association once the residential construction is

complete. As the ponds age and begin to fill with sediments and excess nutrients from

runoff, severe water quality problems may result. The homeowners association may be

unwilling or unable to properly maintain the pond, or simply not know what types of

management practices should be adopted.

Since 1992, the Adopt-A-Pond program has been helping neighborhoods in

Hillsborough County improve the water quality, wildlife habitat value and aesthetics

of stormwater ponds. This innovative partnership between the county and the

Southwest Florida Water Management District empowers residents to take charge of

their ponds through hands-on advice and assistance. 

Among other benefits, participating neighborhoods receive a free one-time dredging

of their pond; free native plants with which to landscape their pond; on-demand

advice and occasional “pond walks” from a county biologist; and instruction in monitoring the water quality of the pond.

To be eligible for the program, the neighborhood’s stormwater pond must be owned

by the county or, if privately owned, must have at least one drainage easement dedicated to Hillsborough County. Additionally, neighborhoods must sign an agreement

pledging to monitor their pond’s water quality, plant native vegetation and submit regular maintenance reports to the county.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

SW-11
45

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Although not all-encompassing, the Adopt-A-Program is a highly cost-effective way

of addressing at least a portion of the residential stormwater ponds located within a

community. The annual cost of the program for Hillsborough County is about

$120,000, excluding the salary of one full-time staff member. The capital outlay for a

Schaeff dredge machine (to conduct the one-time pond clean-out) is about $100,000.

The Adopt-A-Pond Program can be operated without offering the one-time pond

dredging; in fact, dredging is not possible for ponds without public easements.

However, officials agree that, where practical, one-time dredging is a much-needed

service that provides a strong incentive for neighborhoods to participate in the program. Chemical treatment (alum) also could be offered as an alternative to dredging.

Education is an important component of the Adopt-A-Pond program. A full-color

brochure about the program was completed in 2002, and more than 5,000 citizens

receive the quarterly newsletter. Adopt-A-Pond participants receive an Adopt-A-Pond

notebook, aquatic plant identification references, educational meetings, pond walks,

neighborhood signs, waders, native plants, a Pond Management Plan workbook, an

annual pond seminar, annual awards and county staff support as needed.

The Storm Drain marking portion of the program provides materials to mark storm

drains and participates annually in the Tampa BayWatch “Paint Tampa Bay Clean”

event. The Storm Drain Marking program includes door-hangers, which are distributed door-to-door to educate residents about stormwater pollution.

While several bay area communities offer occasional pond improvement/restoration

seminars or distribute educational materials about pond care, the direct assistance and

long-term monitoring offered by the Hillsborough Adopt-A-Pond Program set it apart. 

Currently, there are more than 150 ponds in the Hillsborough Adopt-A-Pond program. 

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Organize a seminar on the Adopt-A-Pond Program and invite stormwater

managers from all over the region to attend to learn more about the program.

Responsible parties: TBEP, TBEP’s Community Advisory

Committee, Hillsborough County 

Schedule: 2006

STEP 2 Encourage expansion of the Adopt-A Pond Program into at least one additional community every 3-5 years by identifying potential funding sources

and assisting interested communities in applying for grants to jump-start an

Adopt-A-Pond program, or to develop a similar initiative providing direct

assistance to neighborhoods with publicly owned ponds.

Responsible parties: TBEP, Southwest Florida Water Management

District

Schedule: Ongoing

ACTION PLAN

SW-11

Water & Sediment Quality
46

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Continue Atmospheric Deposition Studies to

Better Understand the Relationship between Air

and Water Quality 

ACTION: 

Continue atmospheric deposition studies to increase understanding of the relationship

between emissions and deposition to the bay, and the effect on Tampa Bay water quality. 

STATUS: 

Ongoing. Strategy revised in 2004.

BACKGROUND:

Intensive research on atmospheric deposition over the past seven years has addressed

many important questions about air quality and air pollutants that end up in the bay,

leading to better informed management efforts. 

Of key concern are nitrogen oxides, or NOx, which contribute to the formation of

ozone, an air pollutant of great public health concern in Florida. NOx emissions from

power plants also increase the bay’s nitrogen burden, spurring algal growth that can

ultimately harm vital underwater grassbeds. Air pollution from stationary sources (oil

and coal-fired power plants and waste incinerators) and mobile sources (including cars,

trucks and boats) may also transport significant quantities of heavy metals to the bay.

Results of recent investigations indicate that:

• Tampa Bay’s “airshed” includes all of Florida and south Georgia, and about 35% of

the air pollutants that wind up here come from outside the region. 

• About 20-30% of the bay’s total nitrogen burden falls directly to the surface of the

bay from the atmosphere. However, atmospheric deposition’s true contribution is

greater when air pollutants falling in the watershed are considered, since a portion of

these will eventually enter the bay in stormwater runoff. Current estimates are that

15% of the atmospheric nitrogen falling on the watershed eventually reaches the bay

through stormwater runoff.

Even though power plants are the largest local source of nitrogen emissions, preliminary investigations suggest that motor vehicles (including cars, trucks and boats) may

account for half of the direct atmospheric deposition to the bay. That’s because emissions from power plant stacks are more likely than those from low-to-the-ground vehicles to travel outside our watershed. 

The relative contribution between wet deposition (pollutants transported in rainfall)

and dry deposition (dust and particulates) is about 1:1 over water. Gaseous pollutants

like ammonia and nitric acid deposit locally; aerosols are carried long distances before

depositing either in dry fall or rainfall. 

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

AD-1
47

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Several recent developments are working in the bay’s favor. Tampa Electric

Company’s agreement, based on 1999 settlements with EPA and DEP, to clean up its

Big Bend facility and convert its Gannon plant from coal to natural gas, will reduce

NOx emissions from those plants more than 90% by 2010. The largest single source

of NOx emissions in the region and among the largest in Florida, TECO’s Big Bend

and Gannon facilities together emitted 119,000 tons of NOx in 1996. NOx emissions

will fall to 10,000 tons by 2010, translating into a reduction of 273 tons of nitrogen to

the bay over the 14-year period. In addition, every boiler at Big Bend is now being

scrubbed to control sulfur dioxide, the pollutant that causes acid rain. The utility is

also cooperating with DEP to study the effects of air pollution on Tampa Bay with

research funded through settlement fines.

The Environmental Protection Agency has recently finalized regulations for newly

produced commercial and recreational marine diesel engines. These standards are for

NOx, hydrocarbons, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide emissions. Many of the

Tier 1 standards became mandatory in 2004 and stricter Tier 2 standards will begin as

early as 2004 for smaller vessels. Larger Category 3 vessels, such as container ships

and cruise ships, are subject only to NOx emissions standards.

Additionally, while more people will bring more cars to the region in the coming

years, vehicle emissions are likely to remain steady or decline as new regulations

clamp down on per-car emissions.

On the other hand, a reduction in NOx concentrations associated with Florida Power

& Light Company’s decision to convert two units at its Manatee County plant to “cofire” natural gas and oil will be offset by an overall rise in NOx emissions as the plant

expands generating capacity to meet increasing demand in fast-growing Manatee

County.

Many important questions about air pollution and its effect on the bay remain.

Researchers don’t yet know, for example, how much of what is emitted from sources

in the Tampa Bay watershed actually is deposited in the bay, or what the effects of

emissions from commercial and recreational boats may have on air quality and the

bay. Additional studies already planned for Tampa Bay will help answer some of

these critical questions.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Continue studies to determine the sources and impact of atmospheric pollutants on the bay:

• Support continuation of BRACE (Bay Regional Atmospheric Chemistry

Experiment) through the repowering of TECO’s Gannon plant (from coal

to natural gas) in 2004, to quantify and track effects of reduced emissions

on atmospheric loadings of total nitrogen. Validate 15% indirect contribution and be more specific regarding sites, (e.g., basins or land use).

Increase understanding of the impacts of denitrification.

Responsible parties: FDEP and USF College of Public Health

Schedule: Ongoing

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

AD-1
48

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

• Support continuation of AIRMon monitoring to estimate long-term wet

deposition tracking.

Responsible parties: FDEP

Schedule: Ongoing, but may be limited duration

• Quantify the relative contribution of motorboat and ship exhaust to

atmospheric deposition.

Responsible parties: USF College of Public Health (student thesis)

Schedule: 2004-2005

• Pursue estimating effects of Clean Air Act reductions so they can be

incorporated into nutrient reduction action plans. The TBEP nitrogen

management plan currently does not reflect “credits” from anticipated

reductions that have not yet been quantified.

Responsible parties: EPA and TBEP

Schedule: 2005

• Continue collaboration at the regional, state and national levels to curtail

air pollution (long-range transport) impacting the bay from outside the

region. Gain a better understanding of the impacts of long-range pollution

to local and regional areas.

Responsible parties: Local, state and federal governments involved

with the Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition

Study (TBADS)

Schedule: Ongoing

• Track atmospheric mercury concentrations from the Chassahowitzka

NWR monitoring station, and track mercury concentrations in fish tissue

from Tampa Bay.

Responsible parties: TBEP and FWRI (for fish tissue concentrations)

Schedule: Initiate tracking in 2005

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

Principle Oxidized Nitrogen Airshed for Tampa Bay

SOURCE: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

AD-1
49

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Promote Public and Business Energy

Conservation

ACTION: 

Promote public and business energy conservation.

STATUS: 

Ongoing. Strategy refocused in 2004 to concentrate on energy conservation related to

motor vehicles. 

BACKGROUND:

This action appears mostly complete as originally written in the CCMP, with multiple

programs in place in both the public and private sector to encourage and reward energy

conservation.

EPA’s Green Lights program was incorporated into the Energy Stars program in 1998.

EPA and TBEP sponsored an Energy Stars workshop targeting hospitals in the Tampa

Bay area, and EPA continues to market the program in the region. Among the participants are Hillsborough County, Tampa General Hospital, Eckerd Corporation, Oxford

Properties, Verizon, the Hillsborough County School District and the University of

South Florida.

Nationwide, there are more than 13,000 Energy Star qualifying models in over 35

product categories nationwide, including VCRs, computers and major household

appliances. To earn the Energy Star, these products meet strict energy efficiency

guidelines set by the EPA and U.S. Department of Energy.

Examples of other energy conservation initiatives include:

• A wealth of rebate programs, free energy audits and other incentive programs sponsored by local utilities such as TECO, FP&L and Progress

Energy to increase efficiency of appliances, heat pumps, ducts, insulation,

etc. Progress Energy also maintains six experimental solar-powered

homes in Palm Harbor that are being monitored as part of an effort to

reduce the cost of photovoltaic cells and assess the energy savings of

solar-powered systems. 

• TECO has recently initiated its Smart Source Renewable Energy

Program, in which customers pay a small monthly fee to purchase a portion of their monthly power needs from renewable energy sources such as

organic waste. Currently, about 200 residential customers and 10 businesses participate, but that number is expected to increase as awareness

and marketing of the program expands.

• The City of Tampa has developed its own energy-saving program, which

includes a demonstration site at the Tampa Municipal Office Building.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

AD-2
50

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

The program is now being expanded to community and recreation centers,

fire stations and other city buildings. The Tampa Convention Center has

also implemented improvements in energy-saving lighting, and the city

estimates that a 45% savings in energy use has been achieved there.

• The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has initiated the 

“TELEWORK Tampa Bay” program to promote and assess the benefits 

of tele-commuting to local businesses. TBEP is among the companies and 

organizations participating in the program.

• FDEP’s Small Business Assistance Program provides confidential, free

technical and regulatory assistance to businesses statewide in the form of

light/heating/air conditioning energy audits.

• The City of St. Petersburg is continuing to implement city-wide energy

conservation measures, including replacing inefficient/high maintenance

chillers and air handling units with state-of-the-art systems and controls at

the Mahaffey Theater and St. Petersburg Police Department. The city has

also replaced incandescent lighting systems with fluorescent systems in

26 city buildings. In addition, the city has completed retrofitting of street

lighting systems from metal halide and mercury vapor to high pressure

sodium

• The Extension Service has developed a series of workshops to promote 

‘‘green’’ home building and buying. “Build Green and Profit” shows

home builders how to incorporate eco-friendly components, while “Buy

Green and Save” teaches homebuyers the benefits of “green” construction, and “Sell Green and Profit” educates realtors and mortgage brokers

about discount or tax incentive programs available for “green” homes.

Energy conservation is a major element of all these workshops.

Despite these substantial successes, more could be done especially in the private

sector and among individual homeowners to conserve energy. And TBEP and its

partners could do a better job of explaining the link between energy usage and water 

quality in the bay, particularly the connection between automobiles and pollution from

nitrogen, air toxins and carbon dioxide.

STRATEGY:

TBEP will focus its efforts on energy conservation as it relates to motor vehicles,

since research is showing that emissions from vehicles are a primary source of nitrogen loadings to the bay.

STEP 1 Work with commuter and public health organizations, such as Bay Area

Commuter Services, local MPOs and the American Lung Association, to

better publicize the link between air and water quality, and public health.

Responsible parties: TBEP Partners

Schedule: Initiate in 2005 and continue thereafter

STEP 2 Encourage carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, and other alternative

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

AD-2
51

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

forms of transportation. Emphasize the link between obesity and the built

environment, which currently discourages walking.

Responsible parties: Local commuter agencies, TBEP partners,

TBRPC

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 3 Assist in promoting the use of fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles in government

and industry fleets.

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: Initiate in 2005-2006 and continue thereafter

STEP 4 Assist in evaluating the potential impacts to the bay of various transportation strategies and alternative fuel sources.

Responsible parties: ABM, TBEP

Schedule: Ongoing, as needed

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

AD-2
52

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Expand the Use of Reclaimed Water Where

Reuse Benefits the Bay

ACTION: 

Expand the use of reclaimed water where reuse benefits the bay.

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

Efforts to develop and expand reclaimed water systems in the Tampa Bay watershed

for irrigation and natural system restoration continue at a breathtaking pace, reducing

the region’s dependence on groundwater while saving the bay from an overly rich diet

of nutrients discharged in treated wastewater. However, reductions to the bay’s nitrogen loadings must be balanced against the need to preserve and restore water flows in

areas where restricted flows could harm juvenile fisheries. 

Local government wastewater reuse has more than doubled since the region’s bay

management blueprint, Charting the Course, was finalized in 1996 – and is expected

to double again by 2010. Pinellas, Pasco, Hillsborough and Manatee counties used

more than 89 million gallons per day (mgd) of reclaimed water in 2000, up from 40

mgd in 1996. That represents almost 40% of the 227 mgd of wastewater produced in

the four-county region, offsetting the need to tap existing or new potable water supplies by an estimated 55 mgd. 

Early efforts by St. Petersburg paved the way in the use of reclaimed water. Pinellas

County (and the cities therein) remain at the forefront, with approximately 46 mgd of

reclaimed water, followed by Hillsborough County’s 20 mgd, 15.5 mgd in Manatee

County and 7.5 mgd in Pasco County. Combined expansions in the region are expected to increase the reclaimed water supply by as much as 105 mgd for a total reclaimed

water use of 194 mgd by 2010, or approximately 73% of the 265 mgd of the treated

wastewater these counties are projected to produce.

These efforts bring the region closer to meeting the reuse goals of the Southwest

Florida Water Management District to utilize at least 75% of the available reclaimed

water supply, and to promote efficient use of the water once it reaches customers to

further relieve demand for freshwater and groundwater sources. The District is meeting these goals by:

• Maximizing local reuse to meet water demands

• Using technology to increase the efficiency of reclaimed water by managing demand

(through education and meters) and pursuing wet-weather aquifer storag and recovery (ASR), and

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

WW-1
53

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

• Interconnecting systems to move excess flows to areas where it’s needed and when

it’s needed.

ASR technology was developed to help communities address demand and supply

challenges, which can force them, for example, to dump excess water in wet-weather

months while leaving them without enough water to meet demand during dry periods.

Efforts to interconnect local and regional systems may also help to alleviate demand

and supply problems. Tracking ASR projects and potential benefits and impacts will

be an element of the first step of this action.

An issue identified by the TAC during review of this action is the need for education

of managers of large areas receiving reclaimed water on the proper application of

reclaimed water. Maintenance of irrigation systems for ball fields, golf courses, and

larger landscaped areas around public or private buildings will ensure that reclaimed

water is not being directed to stormwater drains (and eventually to the bay) from

impervious surfaces. Education should focus initially on areas around the bay and

tributaries.

REUSE BY COUNTY, 2000-2010 (as of November 2003)

Pinellas County

Ongoing reuse expansion projects between 2000 and 2005 are expected to

supply an additional 18 mgd of reclaimed water and offset 8 mgd of

potable quality water. Project sponsors include Pinellas County; the cities

of Clearwater, Largo, Oldsmar, Pinellas Park, Dunedin, Tarpon Springs and

St. Petersburg; and On Top of the World Utility. Most of these utilities are

also pursuing Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) of reclaimed water,

coupled with system interconnects, to maximize utilization of reclaimed

water and increase system reliability. 

Between 2000 and 2010, new construction projects may result in an additional 27 mgd of reuse, offsetting at least 12 mgd of potable quality water. 

Pasco County

Ongoing expansion of reclaimed water systems in Dade City, New Port

Richey, and Zephyrhills, along with Aloha Utility and Pasco County

Utilities, are expected to supply an additional 1.3 mgd of reclaimed water

to the county between 2000 and 2005, while offsetting 1 mgd of potable

quality water. 

By 2010, new reuse projects may produce another 4 mgd of reclaimed

water, offsetting 2.4 mgd of potable quality water. Pasco County also may

be receiving reclaimed water through the Hillsborough River Watershed

Regional Reclaimed Water Project, and the Largo/Clearwater/Pasco ASRInterconnect Project following city approvals, to restore lakes and wetlands

damaged by excessive groundwater pumping. Altogether, about 13 mgd of

reclaimed water from the cities of Tampa, Largo and Clearwater will be

used to recharge and restore these natural systems. 

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

WW-1
54

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

Hillsborough County

Substantial reuse expansion projects are planned and underway in

Hillsborough County. Between 2000 and 2005, Tampa, Temple Terrace,

Plant City and Hillsborough County are expected to expand reuse by an

additional 20 mgd, offsetting 12 mgd of potable water. Additionally,

Hillsborough County Utilities permitted and constructed Florida’s first ASR

and is currently exploring other ASR expansions to store wet-season

reclaimed water supplies. Future innovations include investigations to

determine the potential of ASRs to prevent aquifer saltwater intrusion. 

The City of Tampa, Pasco County, Hillsborough County, and the City of

Temple Terrace are jointly planning the Hillsborough River Watershed

Regional Reclaimed Water Project. If completed, the project will interconnect their reclaimed water systems to maximize utilization and increase

system reliability, while boosting restoration of vital natural systems.

About 6 mgd of reclaimed water could be distributed below the

Hillsborough River dam to meet minimum flows during the dry season, and

an estimated 10 mgd could be used to recharge and restore wetlands in

Pasco and Hillsborough counties damaged by excessive groundwater

pumping. 

Between 2000 and 2010, local governments within the county plan to construct reclaimed water projects resulting in an additional 55 mgd of

reclaimed water, which will eliminate the need for more than 36 mgd of

potable quality water. 

Manatee County

Expansion of reclaimed water systems in Manatee County is similar in

scope to those for Pinellas County. Between 2000 and 2005, the cities of

Bradenton and Palmetto, together with Manatee County’s “Manatee

Agricultural Reuse Supply” (MARS) project, are expected to supply an

additional 7.4 mgd of reclaimed water, offsetting another 5.5 mgd of

potable quality water. The MARS project also is pursuing ASR and system

interconnects. 

Between 2000 and 2010, new reuse projects could produce another 18.6

mgd of reclaimed water, offsetting at least 12.7 mgd of potable quality

water. 

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Complete calculations of actual nitrogen reductions associated with

reclaimed water through 2003 (TBEP). Using the SWFWMD Regional

Reuse Plan as a base, update information on major reuse projects, ASR and

interconnects, including project name, reuse volume, total nitrogen reduction, where reduction will occur, and project status.

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: 2005-2006

WW-1
55

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

STEP 2 Identify and evaluate issues associated with downstream augmentation on

rivers.

Responsible parties: ABM/TBEP TAC and Tampa Bay Water for

identification of issues; Tampa Bay Water for

evaluation of issues

Schedule: Identification of issues for the Hillsborough River and

Tampa Bypass Canal completed in Spring 2005; evaluation completed Fall 2005.

STEP 3 Develop and implement education for institutions (e.g., schools; government buildings, parks and open spaces; hospitals) and public and private

golf courses on the proper application and maintenance of reclaimed water

systems for landscaped areas. Establish cut-off valves for use where

applicable.

Responsible parties: Local governments, SWFWMD and Tampa Bay

Water

Schedule: 2006

STEP 4 Reevaluate next steps based on results of updated loading estimates by the

Tampa Bay Estuary Program Nitrogen Management Consortium in 2005.

Responsible parties: TBEP, Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management

Consortium

Schedule: 2005-2006

WW-1
56

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

Extend Central Sewer Service to Priority Areas

Now Served by Septic Systems

ACTION: 

Extend central sewer service to priority areas now served by septic systems.

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

While most bay-related septic system investigations have focused on the impact of

nitrogen loadings from septic tanks (thought to be relatively minor overall), recent

studies have shifted the spotlight to bacterial pollution from older, malfunctioning septic tanks. A 1999 survey of 22 rural, urban and beach water sites around Tampa Bay

identified Allen’s Creek and the Courtney Campbell Causeway in Pinellas County,

and Hillsborough County’s Sweetwater Creek and Bullfrog Creek, as problem spots.

The sites were surveyed using a variety of traditional and alternative indicators, and

included bacterial source tracking, coliphage testing (for the presence of viruses and

indication of recent fecal pollution) and direct pathogen monitoring for viruses and

parasites. 

Bullfrog Creek and Sweetwater Creek were among the most heavily polluted. These

sites not only revealed increased coliphage levels, but also high levels of human fecal

contamination based on virus testing and bacterial source tracking. Bullfrog Creek

near Riverview in southern Hillsborough County is bordered by fairly intense residential and commercial land uses and there is no central sewer service. Sweetwater

Creek on Old Tampa Bay’s northwestern shore, by comparison, drains a largely residential area with a mixture of central sewer service and septic tanks, which may or

may not be the cause of the contamination. 

The most heavily impacted site in Pinellas County was Allen’s Creek. Older septic

systems dominate in the largely residential communities bordering its shores, and

efforts to convert portions of these neighborhoods to central sewer service are underway. While the nitrogen loading from septic systems is a concern, so are other chemicals including phosphates and “emerging contaminants” such as pharmaceuticals and

metabolites.

Conversion from septic to sewer service can be costly, with residential hookup fees

ranging anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 or more. That underscores the need for

financing options such as interest-free loans and cost-sharing grants to assist residents

in areas slated for conversion. Additionally, the availability of central sewer service

may actually encourage higher density development in environmentally sensitive

areas, an issue local governments must consider in their long-term planning.

Jurisdictional boundaries can further complicate matters. Most of the remaining septic

WW-2
57

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

tanks in the Allen’s Creek watershed, for example, are located in unincorporated

Pinellas County in numerous enclaves inside Clearwater city boundaries and far from

Pinellas County sewer lines. Accessing sewer hookup from Clearwater may require

residents to annex into the City, or for the City to agree to provide sewer service to

residents in County enclaves as Largo has done. 

Another problem recently identified is that numerous neighborhoods with septic tanks

have been upgraded with central service on their streets, but for a variety of reasons,

many homes and possibly even businesses have not connected to sewer service. In

some cases, septic systems have been operating for many years despite readily available sewer service. 

In some instances the link to septic tanks as the cause of contamination is strong; in

other areas, less so. This revised action calls for a review of current knowledge

regarding the environmental impacts of septic tanks to identify appropriate next steps.

These next steps may include additional source tracking and/or epidemiology studies

to quantify the human health risks associated with the levels of pollutants.

Bacterial contamination at some level is common in all surface waters. Sources of

these contaminants range from wildlife and domestic animal waste to septic tanks and

sewer overflows, and not all bacteria are harmful to humans. The Healthy Beaches

Study used a variety of indicators to focus in on potential trouble spots, then used

source tracking to further identify areas most heavily impacted by human contaminants. One of the most striking findings was the extent to which animals (wild and

domestic) dominate as a source of fecal coliforms. In 73.6% of all water quality samples, the majority of isolates were from non-human sources. The Healthy Beaches

report, coupled with source typing in the City of Clearwater’s Stevenson Creek study,

also show that septic systems on low-lying land near creeks can leak into water bodies. 

Local government partners are taking steps to remediate problem areas where feasible.

In Pinellas County

A watershed management plan completed in 1996 identified approximately

1700 septic systems in the Allen’s Creek watershed. By 2000, the City of

Largo had converted the 130 within its boundaries to central sewer service.

Nearly all of the septic tanks that remain are north of Belleair Road, in

numerous small (unincorporated) Pinellas County enclaves inside

Clearwater city boundaries but far from Pinellas County sewer lines. 

The City of Clearwater conducted a sewer expansion feasibility study and

conceptual sewer layout in April 2002. The study identified 1,674 residential homes with septic tank systems (9% of the properties) in the Allen’s

Creek watershed. However, funding is not currently available to implement sewer expansion. Accessing sewer service will also require annexation into the City. 

Pinellas County also has completed all identified sewer line extensions and

collection system construction in its service area around Lake Tarpon,

WW-2
58

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

though many septic tanks remain within the City of Tarpon Springs’ service

area adjacent to the lake.

The City of St. Petersburg continues to inventory the septic tanks in its service area. At this time 95 tanks have been located, with the vast majority

located in the Snug Harbor area of unincorporated Pinellas County. Some

properties here are connected to the city sewer system. While there are no

plans at present to expand sewer service in this area, rapid property

turnover may prompt future expansion. 

In Hillsborough County

Hillsborough County DOH will assess findings from the Healthy Beaches

report and other sources to identify areas where septic tank conversion may

be desirable and feasible. 

In Manatee County

In Manatee County, all areas where septic systems are suspected of causing

water quality impacts are either already on the County’s central sewer 

system, or have been included for assessment in Manatee County

Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvement Element for connection to central sewer. The only coastal area that still has septic systems is a portion of

Terra Ceia Bay. In 2004 the county implemented new, countywide requirements that mandate a 400-foot setback from waterways for new septic systems, encompassing freshwater, marine and tidal waters. If this setback is

not feasible, then performance-based standards providing Advanced

Wastewater Treatment must be achieved by the septic system.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Include this action in both the Wastewater (nutrients) and the Public Health 

(pathogens) sections of the Water and Sediment Quality Action Plan.

Responsible Parties: TBEP

Schedule: 2005

STEP 2 Assess progress towards removal of package plants.

Responsible parties: TBEP, working with FDEP and local 

governments

Schedule: 2005-2006

STEP 3 Convene small working group of local health department designees, along

with experts from FDEP, SWFWMD and USF, to:

• Review relevant findings from the 2001 Healthy Beaches report and

EPA’s 1997 Response to Congress on the Use of Decentralized

Wastewater Treatment Systems. 

• Evaluate progress on sewering older areas dominated by septic tanks.

• Create a map of central sewer service areas for the watershed, by compiling county and city maps.

WW-2
59

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

• Determine factors contributing to failure of septic systems and create a

map overlay of these factors.

• Evaluate how best to encourage homes and businesses with access to central sewer to connect, including potential funding opportunities.

• Determine whether additional research is needed in areas where high levels of human fecal contamination have been documented to trace sources

or associated human health risks.

• Evaluate current septage design standards and monitoring.

• Discuss whether environmental performance or design standards for septic tanks to address nitrogen impacts are warranted or worth pursuing. 

• Evaluate new performance-based systems for possible use in the Tampa

Bay area.

• Address septage spreading as a nutrient and public health concern, and as

a source water protection issue.

• Identify next steps and strategic opportunities for collaboration.

• Assess maintenance/inspection requirements for existing systems in identified “hot spots” of bacterial contamination.

• Determine the density and impacts of septic systems during development

review process.

• Develop recommendations for setback requirements, considering local

conditions.

Responsible parties: TBEP to convene working group; participants

as noted

Schedule: 2005-2006

STEP 4 Increase educational outreach in problem areas to encourage proper operation and maintenance of septic systems, and encourage hook-up to central

service where it is available. See Pinellas County literature developed for

Allen’s Creek, which could be adapted by other local governments. 

Responsible parties: Local governments

Schedule: 2005-2006

WW-2
60

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

Require Standardized Monitoring of

Wastewater Discharges

ACTION: 

Require standardized monitoring of wastewater discharges to improve the accuracy

and timeliness of pollutant loading estimates.

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

Important strides have been made in implementing this action. For example, FDEP

now requires domestic wastewater facilities in the Tampa Bay watershed to monitor

and report TN, TP, and TSS and other parameters including ammonia if they are reasonably expected to cause or contribute to water quality degradation or standard violations in the receiving water body.

FDEP data entry also has been centralized for discharge monitoring report (DMR)

data for dischargers to state surface waters. FDEP strives to enter the data within 30

days of submittal. The Department is also testing a new Electronic Discharge

Monitoring Report system that allows permit holders to submit monitoring data electronically and thereby expedite entry in the database. TBEP has offered to help FDEP

assess the accuracy of output from the database. FDEP also has established a

Statewide Monitoring Program Core Group that has been meeting to review and

inventory existing monitoring programs, formats, types of information, and

posting/linkage opportunities.

On the local level, EPCHC currently maintains its own files of discharge monitoring

reports (DMRs) and data.

While all point source discharges may be required to report the concentrations of

monitored parameters in consistent units (e.g., mg/l), a number of industrial facilities

are not currently required to report their TN, TP, and TSS discharges. Many of these

facilities report discharge concentrations of only a subset of nutrient forms (e.g., unionized ammonia, ortho-phosphate), and often do so in a way (e.g., without concomitant flow data) that is not conducive to the calculation of accurate loading estimates.

In recent years, this lack of standardization has caused problems for watershed management programs seeking to estimate cumulative loadings of TN, TP, and TSS to

receiving water bodies such as Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Require the measurement and timely reporting (including standardized

reporting units) of a core group of parameters — including TN, TP, TSS,

and average daily or monthly flow — from point-source facilities in the

Tampa Bay watershed with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

WW-3
61

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

System (NPDES) permits discharging an average daily flow of more than

100,000 gallons of wastewater, when discharge of a constituent is reasonably expected to contribute to water quality degradation.

Responsible parties: FDEP

Schedule: Initiate in 2005

STEP 2 Improve access to the FDEP computerized databases for permit compliance

and for wastewater spills at the regional level through District offices.

Responsible parties: FDEP

Schedule: 2005

STEP 3 Assess accessibility and usefulness of FDEP’s discharge monitoring database(s) and send a letter to FDEP outlining recommendations. If necessary,

consider options for a reliable and accessible Tampa Bay regional database

of discharge monitoring reports. 

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: 2005-2006 

WW-3
62

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

Address Hot Spots of Toxic Contamination in

the Bay

ACTION: 

Identify and remediate priority “hot spots” of toxic contamination in the bay.

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

A Tampa Bay Benthic Index (TBBI) has been adopted which provides a measure of

the health of bottom-dwelling animal communities in the bay. This Index assesses the

severity of contamination at various sites based on lack of diversity or abundance of

benthic organisms, low dissolved oxygen concentrations, or exceedances of contamination thresholds for heavy metals, PAHs and other toxics.

Areas of the bay are being ranked from degraded to healthy based on an analysis of

benthic communities using the new Benthic Index. Goals for improvement will likely

focus on maintaining healthy areas while steadily upgrading the quality of degraded

bay sectors. 

Benthic index scores indicate that most of Tampa Bay remains healthy, with the

exception of “hot spots” of contamination around the Port of Tampa, the mouth of the

Hillsborough River, the St. Petersburg/Clearwater Airport, Bayboro Harbor and the

Apollo Beach/Big Bend area. This includes areas where pollutant sources are no

longer active (i.e.; banned pesticides such as DDT that linger in the environment). 

Hot spots are areas where contaminated sediments may pose a direct threat to fish and

wildlife, or impact human health through the consumption of fish. Contaminants

include heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs) and organic pesticides. Most of these pollutants enter the bay in

stormwater runoff and air pollution.

While priority projects have not yet been identified for each hot spot, efforts are progressing in some of the bay’s most heavily impacted sectors. SWFWMD’s Surface

Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program and local governments have

spearheaded five stormwater treatment projects along Tampa’s McKay Bay, an industrialized embayment in the upper arm of Hillsborough Bay, to stem the flow of contaminated sediments. The projects, at the 30th Street outfall, Pond 56, Melbourne Pond,

East Lake (near the old East Lake Mall), and East Shore Commerce Park near the

intersection of Hwy 301 and State Road 60, employ a variety of treatment techniques,

from concrete baffle-boxes to alum injection, to “cleanse” contaminants and sediments

from stormwater before they reach the bay. 

Bay sediment samples taken from 1995 to 2002 show no significant changes in contaTX-1
63

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Tampa Bay Benthic Index

Legend

Healthy

Indeterminant

Degraded

SOURCE: EPC, Manatee County, Pinellas County DEM, from samples collected in 1993-2000

The Benthic Index is a tool for assessing the severity of contamination

at various bay sites based on lack of diversity or abundance of benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms, low dissolved oxygen concentrations,

or exceedances of contamination thresholds for heavy metals, PAHs

and other toxics. 

TX-1
64

TX-1

CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

mination since 1993 when intensive sediment sampling began, although additional hot

spots were identified. Most of these hot spots are in the lower Hillsborough and Palm

rivers, where targeted sampling didn’t commence until 1997. Benthic monitoring is

coordinated by the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County

with participation from Manatee and Pinellas Counties. About 120 samples are analyzed each year (since modifications to the study design in 2000) for the presence of

contaminants and to determine the abundance and health of organisms living in the

sediments. 

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Complete development of benthic health assessments for impacted areas of

the Bay, using the new Tampa Bay Benthic Index to identity priority sites

in need of cleanup. 

Responsible parties: TBEP Sediment Quality Assessment Group

Schedule: Priority sites identified in 2005

STEP 2 Develop and implement site-specific Action Plans for contaminated areas

on the priority list. Action Plans may incorporate stormwater improvements, pollution abatement projects, source-control strategies and sediment

remediation, such as capping of degraded sediments with clean fill.

Responsible parties: TBEP Sediment Quality Assessment Group for

development of Action Plans for first two priority areas; implementation may involve various

partners, including local governments, the

Tampa Port Authority, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, and private industries

Schedule: First two Action Plans developed in 2006; 

implementation initiated in 2007 with appropriate 

responsible parties 

STEP 3 Incorporate benthic community targets with tidal streams target

development.

Responsible parties: TBEP Sediment Quality Assessment Group

Schedule: 2006
65

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

65
66

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Toxics of Concern for Tampa Bay

ommon trace element widely employed in

lectroplating applications. Also present in paints,

plastics, batteries and domestic sewage sludge.

Atmospheric sources include alloy and metal production,

oal combustion, waste incineration, cement production.

irect sources include electroplating/metal finishing,

wastewater treatment plants, iron/st el foundries and

other industrial applications, residential runoff and

phosphate fertilizers.

arge number of human-induced sources to marine

nvironment, including oil and fuel combustion,

ntifouling paints, metal cleaning operations, plating

baths and rinses, commercial pigments and dyes, wood

preservatives, leachate from copper pipes, domestic

ewage sludge, and copper sulfate used to control

lgae in reservoirs.

argest source of lead to the environment originates

from its past use as a gasoline additive and from

tmospheric deposition from auto emissions. Paint,

atteries and domestic sewage sludge also are potential

ources.

Major a plication is coating of other metals to protect

gainst co rosion. Used widely as a component in

atteries and tires. Sources include municipal

wastewater and sludge, direct industrial discharges,

urface runoff, and atmospheric deposition.

ormerly used to control a broad spectrum of

gricultural, silvicultural and household insect pests.

armers used granular chlordane mixed with fert izers

or broad-spectrum insect control on field crops. Also

plied o casiona ly as a liquid spray for some beetles,

and used as an insecticide on golf courses. Agricultural

nd urban runoff are among the major documented

ources.

Cadmium - otentia ly toxic and may concentrate in food

webs as is retained for long periods in biological systems.

Does not appear to accumulate in fish or undergo

biomagnification, but does accumulate in sediments. High

levels of cadmium present in sediments from the Hillsborough

ay/Lower Palm River, Allen's Creek, Cross Bayou and Boca

Ciega Bay.

Chromium - xhibits varied levels of toxicity in different

ish species. Also listed as a mammalian carcinogen. Highest

levels in bay sediments found in Hillsborough Bay near the

mouth of the Alafia River, in Boca Ciega Bay near Cro

Bayou, and near Bayboro Harbor.

Copper Widely distributed in the natural environment,

but also demonstrates acute toxicological e fects at small

oncentrations above essential levels. Exceedingly toxic to

quatic biota. Highest levels in bay sediments found in Boca

Ciega Bay near Cross Bayou, in Hillsborough Bay near the

Alafia River and Davis Islands, and in Middle Tampa Bay near

Bayboro Harbor and Papys Bayou.

Lead - auses a number of acute and chronic human health

impacts, and accumulates in sediments. High levels found

in bay sediments from Hillsborough Bay near the Alafia River,

he lower Hi lsborough River, and Boca Ciega Bay near Cross

Bayou.

Zinc - Toxic at high concentrations and widespread in the

nvironment. Highest levels in bay sediments found in Boca

Ciega Bay near Cross Bayou and in Hillsborough Bay near

the Alafia River.

DDT - Animal and potential human carcinogen; biomagnifies

n organisms and persists in the environment. Caused widepread contamination o sh and wildlife, especially during

1960-80. Banned in 1972. DT remains in sediments at

everal bay sites. Highest concentrations are reported at

orthern Boca Ciega Bay, northern Hillsborough Bay and near

the Alafia River and Papys Bayou.

Chlordane - nvironmentally persistent insecticide used

xtensively in termite control and also to control certain

gricultural insects. Banned in 1988. Concentrations of

hlordane at northern Boca Ciega Bay, Papys Bayou, Mullet

Key and northern Hi lsborough Bay were the highest of any

ites measured in the bay.

Contaminant/Impacts Sources

Heavy Metals Pesticides
CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

67

Widely applied by aircraft to control fire ants on

astures betw en 1965 and 1978. Also used as fire

retardant in electrical components, fabrics and plastics.

Sewage sludge also a potential source.

Introduced about 30 years ago and widely used to

ontrol winged insects a sociated with many row and

eld crops. Applied as a liquid spray to crops.

Widely used from 1950-1974 to control soil insects

on cotton, corn and citrus. All uses ba ned in 1985

except subsurface termite control and some

mothproofing. Dieldrin is a breakdown product of the

esticide aldrin, both of which are long-lasting in soils

nd not highly water-soluble.

ormerly employed in a wide variety of industrial

plications including insulation in electrical capacitors

nd transformers; paints, additives, adhesives, and

caulking compounds; hydraulic fluids. Sources to

nvironment are varied including direct discharge from

production facilities into municipal sewage systems,

eaching from disposal sites, refuse incineration and

euse of transformer oil.

A group of related compounds present in crude oil

nd its products, released to the atmosphere during

ombustion. Also released from burning of nonetroleum substances, such as wood (brush fires).

Sources include treated sewage, stormwater runoff

nd oil spi ls. Suspected sources include aerial fallout,

etroleum refinery wastes, and discharges of drilling

fluids.

Pesticides PCBs/PAHs Contaminant/Impacts Sources

Mirex - euro-toxic pesticide; also known as Dechlorane.

ublethal effects in the marin environment include

ecreased algal growth, reduced fish growth, disrupted

lue crab behavior, reduction in body weight and body lipid

in salmon. Sublethal effects in birds include reduced

eproductive capacity. Causes tumors in rats and mice.

Mammalian symptoms include weight loss, enlarged livers,

altered liver enzyme response, reproductive failure, fetal

bnormalities including cataracts, heart defects, scoliosis

nd cleft palate. Concentrations of mirex in oysters from

Tampa Bay are relatively low compared to many other sites 

around the nation. Production of mirex discontinued in

1977. Highest concentrations in bay sediments at Boca

Ciega Bay, Mullet Key and Cockroach Bay.

Endosulfan - azardous neuro-toxic pesticide with

acute toxicity to marine organisms, high bioconcentration

factor and fairly long half-life. Although not widely sampled

for in Tampa Bay, endosulfin has b en recorded in sediments

from Cockroach Bay and in stormwater from an industrial

ark in West Tampa.

Dieldrin - Pesticide for soil-dwelling insects including

ermites. Sublethal effects include starvation, liver damage,

immunological suppression, decreased fertility, postnatal

mortality. A carcinogen for some animals and a mutagen

in cell cultures. Highest levels in bay sediments reported

t the mouths of the Hi lsborough River and Boca Ciega

Bay.

PCBs - Among the most persistent and toxic of organic

ompounds. Most risk of cancer from consumption of

ontaminated seafood attributed to PCBs. Biomagnifies.

Manufacture ended in 1976. PCBs at sites in Hi lsborough

Bay exceed Florida's Probable Effects Level (PEL) for

biological e fects from toxic contaminants. PCBs also found

in sediments at Boca Ciega Bay near Cro s Bayou.

PAHs Many PAHs are potent carcinogens or mutagens.

ighest levels in bay sediments found in Hillsborough Bay

ear Davis Islands and the Alafia River, Boca Ciega Bay,

nd Middle Tampa Bay near Papys Bayou.
68

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Improve Opportunities for Proper Hazardous

Waste Disposal

ACTION: 

Improve opportunities for proper hazardous waste disposal by area residents and businesses.

STATUS: 

Complete. Continue to monitor implementation.

BACKGROUND:

This action appears to be complete.

All Tampa Bay counties now have permanent household hazardous waste collection

centers. The times and dates these centers are open vary, but most are open at least

one or two weekend days a month. Geographically large counties such as

Hillsborough have opened multiple permanent centers to ensure access for residents

throughout the county. Other communities, such as Pinellas, combine permanent dropoff facilities with occasional mobile collection days tied to specific events. City residents are permitted and encouraged to use the county drop-off facilities, and several

cities – including Clearwater and St. Petersburg – sponsor special “amnesty days”

when residents are encouraged to bring wastes to mobile collection stations.

TBEP and the Southwest Florida Water Management District partnered to produce a

general-interest, foldout poster listing all household chemical collection centers or services in the bay watershed, along with non-toxic alternatives to common household

cleaners.

Hillsborough and Pinellas counties, as well as the City of Tampa, recently began

accepting consumer electronics at their collection centers.

Used oil recycling stations are located in all three Bay Area counties.

Pinellas County offers a special disposal program for small businesses that generate

hazardous waste. Manatee County provides residents and businesses with “milk-run”

collection of household wastes with business wastes collected at a discounted cost for

small-quantity generators. 

The state Department of Environmental Protection sponsors an annual program called

Operation Clean Sweep, which collects unused or recently banned pesticides from

farmers, pest control operators and other targeted industries.

DEP’s Pollution Prevention (P2) Program, a non-regulatory initiative that encourages

businesses to maximize efficiency while minimizing waste, now has a full-time coordinator in each of DEP’s six districts. The coordinators provide on-site assessments,

TX-2
69

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

TX-2

telephone consultations and workshops to any business owner upon request.

Hillsborough’s Environmental Protection Commission and Pinellas County’s

Department of Environmental Management offer similar programs to businesses that

generate small quantities of hazardous wastes. In addition to on-site visits, EPC’s

Small Quantity Generator program mailed more than 12,000 notification fact sheets to

affected businesses and disseminated more than 5,000 pieces of related literature.

EPC plans to continue this program at least through the year 2005.

A variety of retailers, including Radio Shack and Target, accept cadmium, lead-acid

and lithium ion batteries – such as those used in cell phones and digital cameras – for

recycling.

Although recycling centers are not universally convenient to all county residents, and

opportunities for small businesses to dispose of hazardous waste and electronics could

be further enhanced, substantial progress has been made in implementing this action.

Additionally, further progress seems likely because of new or expanded regulations

governing hazardous waste storage and disposal, and expanding uses of and markets

for recycled materials. Therefore, no further TBEP action other than continued monitoring of implementation seems warranted at this time.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Continue to monitor implementation.

Responsible parties: Counties, cities, FDEP, SWFWMD, 

TBEP

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 2 Develop endpoints and indicators to track progress, e.g. amount of

waste collected, number of customers served, etc.

Responsible parties: TBEP, working with partners

Schedule: 2005-2006
70

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Reduce the Occurrence of Municipal Sewer

Overflows to the Bay 

ACTION: 

Reduce the occurrence of accidental municipal sewer overflows to the bay.

STATUS: 

Ongoing. 

BACKGROUND:

Significant strides have been made to address the problem of sewer overflows in

Tampa Bay. Although spills will occur periodically as a result of equipment failures,

especially during very heavy rains and storm events, extensive infrastructure and

maintenance investments have abated the local problem and are enabling officials to

better track trends and trouble spots. Some of the most significant upgrades have

occurred in cities such as St. Petersburg and Clearwater, where millions of dollars

have been invested to replace and improve aging infrastructure. 

EPA conducted a workshop in 1999 to encourage municipal wastewater plants to perform self-audits on wastewater collection systems in lieu of state or federal agency

audits. St. Petersburg and Clearwater were specifically targeted to participate and have

since completed audits.

St. Petersburg completed the design on a long-term sanitary sewer overflow abatement

program in 1998, including recommendations for immediate and long-term actions. A

key conclusion was that the City should focus more resources on cleaning large-diameter lines. To address that, the City has procured three additional sewer-cleaning

machines (vactors) and contracted with two sewer-cleaning companies for routine

maintenance of critical segments in the collection system. Additionally, St. Petersburg

has started to replace and reline sanitary sewer lines in critical areas throughout the

city. A $30 million bond issue in 1999 secured the money for design and construction

of long-term improvements. In June 2003, a bond issue secured an additional $30 million to complete implementation of the sewer overflow abatement program. The City

continues to implement the recommendations of the Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study

completed in March 1998, budgeting over $6 million a year in FY 2000, FY 2001, FY

2002 and FY 2003 to support maintenance. In addition, $8 million a year has been

designated in the 5-year Capital Improvement budget for sewer system rehabilitation

and improvement. 

The City of Clearwater is implementing a capital improvement plan to improve its

wastewater collection system by reducing stormwater infiltration into the City’s

wastewater collection systems to prevent sewer overflows. Line infiltration, which

causes flows that exceed system capacity, is the primary cause of wastewater discharges from treatment facilities. Phase 1 of the Sanitary Sewer System Evaluation

Study and Self Audit was completed at a cost of $2.3 million dollars with recommendations for manhole renovation, upgrading pump stations and sewer lining. 

In 2005, the City of Tampa also embarked on a Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study to

PH-1
71

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

PH-1

identify areas in need of pipe replacement to prevent infiltration and inflow, which can

cause overflows. The study will take 18 months, and implementation of the recommendations will likely take five additional years. The City also is purchasing additional

portable generators to reduce power outages, a key cause of sewer overflows during the

2004 hurricane season. Finally, Tampa is preparing an ordinance to restrict the dumping

of grease into the sewer system – the single largest cause of overflows for the city.

Pinellas County Utilities is implementing a 5-year plan to correct problem areas within

the Pinellas County south collection area. Additionally, an aggressive program to install

inflow protectors on manholes began in 1999. The goal is to fit every manhole in both

service areas with these devices. In severe inflow problem areas, manhole rings and

covers are being replaced with watertight, lock-down ring and cover assemblies.

Pinellas County Utilities has also voluntarily entered the self-audit phase of the USEPA

Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance Program effort.

Hillsborough County efforts include the include the procurement of a remote monitoring

and control system (SCADA, or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition). The

SCADA system will identify and advise of pump station failures, and use upstream

pump stations to hold flows in the event a downstream pump malfunctions. The system

is being constructed in phases at a cost of nearly $5 million. The County also has

implemented improved maintenance and inspection procedures. 

To better assess the impact of wastewater spills on nitrogen levels in Tampa Bay,

Pinellas County conducted a one-year study of overflows throughout the bay watershed,

covering September 2002-October 2003. Monthly nitrogen spill estimates were compared to modeled “best estimate” mean monthly nitrogen loads calculated for TBEP

(from 1999-2003) by bay segment. The analysis showed that the monthly spill loads

were minor relative to total external bay segment loads in Hillsborough ((0-2%) and

Middle Tampa Bay (0-4%), but were potentially significant for at least one month in

Old Tampa Bay (0-26%) and Boca Ciega Bay (0-20%). Because of the potential for

localized water quality impacts resulting from sewer overflows, this action warrants

ongoing monitoring to ensure continued progress.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Support local government efforts to gain grant funding to replace substandard

or aging facilities.

Responsible parties: TBEP (through contracted grant writing services)

Schedule: Initiate in 2005

STEP 2 Consider implementing the recommendations of TBEP’s Technical Advisory

Committee, as follows:

• Use standardized forms to report spills to FDEP, EPC and the public.

• Repeat the spill data collection and analysis for an additional year,

since the period assessed by Pinellas County included abnormally

high rainfall amounts.

• Check for bay water quality impacts from reported spills.

• Use same-day WWTP influent nitrogen concentration data to estimate

loads from storm-related spills.

Responsible Parties: TBEP, local governments, FDEP

Schedule: Initiate in 2006
72

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

PH-2

Continue Source and Risk Assessments of

Human and Ecosystem Health Indicators

Suitable for Subtropical Marine Beaches and

Waters

ACTION: 

Continue source and risk assessments of human and ecosystem health indicators

appropriate to detect bacteria and pathogens for subtropical marine beaches and

waters.

STATUS: 

Ongoing 

BACKGROUND: 

Clean beaches and the recreational activities associated with them form the backbone

of Tampa Bay’s tourism industry. Water quality at beaches ranges from excellent

(Gulf beaches where warnings and health advisories are rare) to moderate (bay and

inland waterway beaches where advisories are more frequent) to poor (lakes and other

freshwater environments that are not suitable or approved for swimming). Of particular interest are the moderate quality beaches that have received heightened media

exposure associated with advisories and closures. These beaches include Fred

Howard Park in Tarpon Springs, R.E. Olds Park in Oldsmar, beaches along the

Courtney Campbell and Gandy causeways, and St. Petersburg’s North Shore beach.

Swimming is not advised in canals and intercoastal waters, as well as Chestnut Park at

Lake Tarpon, the Boy Scout Camp at Lake Chautauqua and Wall Springs in Palm

Harbor, the latter representing a growing problem with springs in Florida driven by

deteriorating groundwater quality. 

Of key concern is the risk to swimmers and the necessity for establishing effective

water quality indicators to detect harmful bacteria that can cause rashes, ear, nose and

throat infections and gastrointestinal diseases. However, the finding that the most

widely used indicator of human and animal fecal contamination — fecal coliforms

and more specifically E. coli – grows naturally on vegetation in warm climates has

raised questions about its efficacy as an indicator in Florida. Additionally, in recent

years total and fecal coliform bacterial indicators have failed to consistently detect the

persistence of pathogens, especially viruses in surface waters. That has led to a search

for better indicators of human health risks. 

Healthy Beaches Tampa Bay 

Pinellas County established the first Healthy Beaches program in 1998 after a growing

body of evidence suggested that reliance on traditional water quality standards, such

as total and fecal coliform, may not be appropriate for sub-tropical waters. This

raised the concern that beaches may be closed unnecessarily, while overlooking other

potential health concerns. The St. Petersburg/Clearwater Convention & Visitors
73

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

PH-2

Bureau recognized the implications, and together with the Pinellas County Health

Department, brought the issue to the attention of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program.

TBEP, along with Pinellas County and the Southwest Florida Water Management

District, helped finance the first phase of the study through the University of South

Florida College of Marine Science. Phase 1 was to recommend the best indicator for

use in evaluating water quality at recreational beaches in Florida. 

Phase 1, completed in 2001, found enterococci (Enteroccocus species) to be the preferred test for marine waters because they tend to live longer than fecal coliforms and

are more closely correlated with cases of gastrointestinitis in recreational waters.

However, enterrococci share the same major disadvantage of the fecal coliform group

in that they are shed in feces of all warm-blooded animals, providing no clues as to

their source. Phase 1 ultimately recommended the use of enterococci, along with

fecal coliform bacteria, while proposing source tracking of the fecal coliform to fingerprint the types of bacteria found (Rose et all 2001). 

Those recommendations mirror state standards utilized since 2000, when Florida’s 34

coastal counties began bi-weekly beach water sampling (weekly since 2002) as part of

the Florida Healthy Beaches Program. Coastal counties analyze for bacteria indicating enterococci (as required by EPA) and fecal coliform (as required by DEP).

County health departments issue health advisories or warnings based on these standards, although the link between exposure to these organisms and public health risk

remains unclear. EPA funding now requires counties to use a five-sample geometric

mean of the enterococcus indicator, resulting in more frequent exceedances and associated health advisories. 

A proposed Phase 2 for the Healthy Beaches Tampa Bay project recommends a risk

assessment of pathogens to establish the source and fate of these organisms, and to

help develop a system and policies to better forecast and inform the public about

health risks. The tidal modeling needed for Phase 2 is available through USF’s

PORTS system (Dr. Mark Luther), but the pathogen link remains unfunded to date. 

Health advisories warning swimmers of potential risks due to high bacteria counts

have risen significantly in recent years at the nation’s beaches, according to the EPA.

In Florida, beach warnings increased 30% to 686 in 2001, up from 527 the previous

year. This can be attributed in part to an increase in the number of samples taken, the

concurrent use of two indicators (fecal coliforms and enterococcus), and changes in

the way results are calculated. Although beach water quality in Tampa Bay is generally good, some trouble spots remain. 

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Reconvene Healthy Beaches Tampa Bay partners through the USF College

of Marine Sciences’ Healthy Beaches/Healthy Coasts Center to evaluate

health advisory standards and policies for public beaches and discuss

development of sensors for rapid detection of viruses and bacteria. Provide

results to federal, state and local health units.
74

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

PH-2

Responsible parties: USF College of Marine Sciences’ Healthy 

Beaches/Healthy Coasts Center

Schedule: 2004-2005

STEP 2 Pursue Phase 2 Healthy Beaches Tampa Bay funding for an assessment of

pathogens to aid in formulating more effective health advisories (including

effective notification of the public), and to speed development of sensor

technologies that could determine the specific pathogens present on our

coastlines. Computer modeling and additional work is needed to:

• Better establish the link between exposure to certain organisms and risk

of disease – with special emphasis on at-risk populations (elderly,

immuno-compromised). 

• Identify sources (animal type, septic tank, boating, natural vegetation,

insects).

• Determine fate — how long an organism persists before the risk becomes

negligible. 

• Predict weather and water conditions that will intensify or diminish the

contamination. 

• Develop a “microbiological toolbox” for establishing standards and identifying potential mitigation strategies.

Responsible parties: USF College of Marine Sciences’ Healthy

Beaches/Healthy Coasts Center 

Schedule: 2004-2005

STEP 3 Increase public education and awareness of health and beach advisories by

posting beach and health advisories on the Tampa Bay Estuary Atlas and

www.HealthyBeaches.edu.

Responsible parties: TBEP; USF Healthy Beaches/Healthy Coasts

Program

Schedule: 2005

STEP 4 Identify measures to reduce contamination and provide results of research

(1st and 2nd Steps) to EPA and the State of Florida.

Responsible parties: TBEP partners, other local governments

Schedule: Initiate following source identification in Step 2, or as

sources become identified

STEP 5 Provide side-by-side data on total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci information to the State of Florida for TMDL development.

Responsible Parties: local governments

Schedule: 2005-2006

STEP 6 Track assessments conducted by EPCHC and the Hillsborough County

Health Department for swimming in canals and evaluate for future baywide application.

Responsible parties: EPCHC, Hillsborough County Health Unit

Schedule: 2005-2006

STEP 7 Update the “Is It Safe To Swim In The Bay?” fact sheet to include 

precautions against swimming in stormwater ponds and residential canals.

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: 2006
75

CHARTING

the COURSE Bay Habitats FOR TAMPA BAY

Mangrove forests like this one are among the bay’s most familiar habitats.

Decaying leaves falling from these red mangroves create detritus that is a

key element of the bay’s food web, while barnacles and oysters grow along

the fingerlike roots of the trees, and a variety of wading birds nest in the

branches. Crabs, shrimp and popular sportfish like the snook seek shelter

or food among the mangrove roots, while the sturdy trees themselves

serve as natural storm buffers.

Photo by Donna Bollenbach
ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

76

CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for

Habitat Restoration and Protection 

ACTION: 

Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan to restore and protect key bay habitats. 

STATUS: 

Ongoing. Strategy revised in 2004 to incorporate hard bottom habitats, specific goals

and targets for tidal rivers, streams and creeks, and a detailed Seagrass Restoration

and Protection Plan.

BACKGROUND:

Significant progress has been made in restoring the historic balance of coastal habitats

in Tampa Bay, a key goal of the Estuary Program’s bay management blueprint. This

strategy reflects efforts to provide a mosaic of habitats to support wildlife that rely on

different habitats at various stages in their life cycles. 

Restoration of low-salinity habitats was given highest priority in TBEP’s Master Plan

for Habitat Restoration and Protection because these habitats have declined faster than

others, imperiling the species that depend upon them. 

As reported by TBEP partners, nearly 380 acres of low-salinity habitat was restored

from 1995 to 2001, far exceeding the initial goal of restoring 100 acres every five

years. The 380 acres actually restored represents roughly one-fifth of the long-term

restoration goal of 1,800 acres of low-salinity tidal marsh, areas that are vital to the

survival of juvenile snook and mullet and numerous wading birds. TBEP partners

also reported that another 2,018 acres of mangrove and salt marsh habitat were

restored during this same period.

The upland element of the Master Plan is incorporated in the multi-agency Coastal

Conservation Corridor Plan. It emphasizes the restoration of small freshwater ponds in

the vicinity of white ibis and other wading bird rookeries, acquisition of lands with

existing freshwater ponds in areas where the birds forage and along wildlife corridors,

and exotic plant removal from low-salinity portions of creeks and streams that serve

as juvenile fish nurseries and foraging stations for wading birds. While some progress

has been made, the total impact of these upland-focused efforts has not yet been fully

documented. 

The Master Plan also identified 28 priority sites for protection to be managed or

restored as necessary, either through direct purchase or other means such as conservation easements on private property. These sites were earmarked ‘high priority’ by the

Southwest Florida Water Management District in the state’s Save our Rivers and

Florida Forever land acquisition programs. Nearly 1,900 of the 13,434 acres slated

for protection in the Master Plan were acquired between 1995 and 2000. 

BH-1
77

CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

BH-1

8,754Acres

2,261Acres

474 Acres 5 Acres

Tampa Bay Habitat Protection/Aquisition 1996-2003

1,450

378

133

625

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres

Tampa Bay Habitat Restoration 1996-2003

Legend

Salt Barrens

Coastal Upland

Marsh/Mangrove

Riparian

Legend

Oligohaline

Marsh/Mangrove

Coastal Uplands

Freshwater 

Wetlands

SOURCE: SWFWMD

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

Lower Tampa 

Bay

Middle Tampa 

Bay

Hillsborough 

Bay

Old Tampa 

Bay Year

Lower Tampa 

Bay

Middle Tampa 

Bay

Hillsborough 

Bay

pa 
78

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

BH-1

Critical habitats not included in the 1995 Bay Habitat Master Plan are hard bottom

habitats, including both submerged areas and oyster bars. These important habitat

types will be included in the Master Plan update. In addition, recent research results

have indicated that water quality and restoration goals and targets for tidal rivers,

streams and creeks may be different than those for open waters of the bay. A project

to support development of these goals was included in the TBEP FFY 04 Annual

Workplan.

Both Hillsborough and Pinellas counties have well-established and funded land acquisition and preservation programs. A sales tax referendum to create a similar program

in Manatee County in 2003 was rejected by voters. However, commissioners there

supported a .25 millage tax increase that raised about $3.5 million to provide the local

grant match needed to purchase the 443-acre Robinson Preserve along lower Tampa

Bay and the Manatee River. The County Administrator plans to request keeping additional millage on the tax roll in the future to enable the purchase of other environmentally sensitive lands. 

The concept of restoring an optimum balance of habitats continues to have important

implications for Tampa Bay and other areas. Historically, habitat restoration and land

acquisition have been largely opportunistic ventures, with agencies and communities

purchasing and restoring what was most readily available or visibly connected to the

bay. That approach helped build awareness of the environmental plight and needs of

the bay at a critical time. 

In recent years, the focus shifted to providing a mosaic of habitat types within a given

project to maximize the benefits to fish and wildlife. The TBEP partners took this

concept a step further by developing restoration and protection goals based on the

needs of key wildlife guilds or groups that share common habitat and feeding preferences. These efforts have helped drive important gains in critical habitats that might

otherwise have been overlooked.

Citizen advisors to the Estuary Program have developed a number of suggestions on

ways this strategy might be expanded and enhanced. These recommendations will be

considered as part of a comprehensive review and documentation of progress and

priorities in habitat restoration and protection in 2005.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Update the Tampa Bay Habitat Restoration and Protection Master Plan,

including the following elements:

• Assess and document progress on Tampa Bay’s Habitat Restoration and

Protection Plan, “Restoring the Balance.” Include habitat restoration and

land acquisition to date, and a list of remaining priority sites as identified

in the 1995 “Restoring the Balance” document.

• Include hard bottom substrates (including submerged habitat and oyster

bars) as critical habitat in the Update.
79

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

BH-1

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: 2004-2005

STEP 2 Develop restoration and protection goals and targets for tidal rivers,

streams and creeks in the Tampa Bay system.

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: 2004

STEP 3 Develop a Seagrass Restoration and Protection Plan for Tampa Bay, for

incorporation into the “Restoring the Balance” update.

Responsible parties: Seagrass Working Group

Schedule: 2005

STEP 4 Continue to encourage restoration and protection of priority habitats,

through acquisition and restoration programs.

Responsible parties: SWFWMD, local governments, EPA

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 5 Reconvene TBEP’s habitat restoration subcommittee to evaluate progress

and goals in restoring and protecting coastal and upland habitats, including

recommendations from the Community Advisory Committee. Update and

re-circulate maps highlighting priority restoration projects. 

Responsible parties: TBEP and ABM

Schedule: Following update of the Habitat Master Plan
80

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Implement Mitigation Criteria for Tampa Bay

and Identify Priority Sites for Mitigation

ACTION: 

Implement mitigation criteria specific to Tampa Bay, and identify priority sites for offsite mitigation.

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

Mitigation is the process by which applicants compensate for impacts to natural 

wetlands by creating new or enhancing existing wetlands. Mitigation is required of

private developers and governments in Florida. Typically, these manmade wetlands

are established on the same site as the project in an area not slated for development.

Keeping track of these projects has proven difficult with limited government

resources, although there have been improvements. A policy review of wetland mitigation conducted in 2000 by OPPAGA (Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis

and Government Accountability) indicates significant increases in compliance and

monitoring. Based on data collected by SWFWMD staff, OPPAGA reported that

District field audits in 1988 and 1989 found only a 33% success rate of constructed

mitigation projects. District staff review of Environmental Resource Permits issued

since 1995 found that 82% of completed mitigation projects were substantially in

compliance. 

In addition to the challenges of monitoring and enforcing mitigation requirements,

some bay managers believe the mitigation criteria used by the state is insufficient to

protect particularly vulnerable bay habitats.

Problems with mitigation and pressures from private interests who viewed it as

cumbersome led to a new concept called “mitigation banking” in the early 1990s. It

allows developers to compensate for wetland losses in one place by preserving,

restoring or creating wetlands at another site so that there is no net acreage loss. 

Proponents say mitigation banking can consolidate habitat restoration projects into

larger units, increasing the odds for success and making permits easier to monitor and

enforce. The ecological benefits of these larger systems are far greater, they say, than

a tiny wetland in the middle of a shopping center or along a busy road. Critics contend mitigation banking makes it easier to destroy wetlands. If an applicant can simply pay to restore marshes somewhere else, there is little incentive to preserve wetlands on site. Many of the concerns stem from provisions (or lack thereof) in the state

mitigation banking rule.

To address these complex issues, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program supported developBH-2
81

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

ment of mitigation criteria for the Tampa Bay region as part of the Comprehensive

Conservation & Management Plan for Tampa Bay. An Agency on Bay Management

workgroup convened in 1997 presented final recommendations in 1999.

Recommendations addressed how to determine when on-site or off-site mitigation was

appropriate, as well as siting criteria for off-site mitigation. The group also identified

a short list of areas suitable for banking.

Although the criteria were approved by the TBEP Policy Committee, it’s unclear to

what extent they have been incorporated into local government or agency programs.

This updated action calls for redistributing the recommendations as a means to renew

a dialogue on this important topic. 

Mitigation banking has proceeded at a snail’s pace in this region, as a result of land

limitations and the complexity and costs involved in siting and operating banks. To

date, the state has permitted only one mitigation bank in the Tampa Bay watershed,

near Cockroach Bay. The 161-acre Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank is privately owned. 

While this is the only state-permitted bank in the watershed, several local governments and agencies are mitigating for impacts at larger sites to maximize ecological

benefits. A partnership between the FDOT and SWFWMD, in which the transportation department pays the District a per-acre fee to conduct its off-site mitigation,

allows consolidation of smaller mitigation projects into larger, regionally significant

projects. Additionally, FWC operates a species mitigation bank at Bullfrog Creek in

Hillsborough County to mitigate impacts to gopher tortoises. 

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Redistribute mitigation criteria completed by TBEP workgroup in 1999 to

agencies and local governments with request for comment, asking specifically: 1) are they aware of the criteria; 2) to what extent are they implementing recommendations; and 3) soliciting ideas on next steps. Report

results at a joint ABM-TBEP meeting.

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: 2004

STEP 2 Spotlight accomplishments with a forum that also helps outline next steps.

Convene a meeting of habitat restoration experts, regulatory agencies and

mitigation bankers to review agency feedback on mitigation criteria,

discuss mitigation banking progress, and identify next steps, including

review of “habitat trading” concept and a discussion of allowing land

acquisition in lieu of mitigation. Provide technical information on how

effective mitigation is in creating functional habitat and exchange information among experts.

Responsible parties: ABM

Schedule: 2005 

STEP 3 Direct off-site mitigation to priority sites for habitat restoration when onsite mitigation is not feasible. However, mitigation that does not result in a

net increase in habitat above the level of impact should not count toward

restoration goals for Tampa Bay.

BH-2
82

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Responsible parties: FDEP, SWFWMD, EPCHC

Schedule: 2006-2007

STEP 4 Simplify and integrate lists identifying mitigation/restoration sites (TBEP

Restoring the Balance list and SWIM), with the goal of identifying top mitigation sites for each bay sector. 

Responsible parties: ABM and Tampa BayWatch

Schedule: 2006-2007

STEP 5 Continue to track progress in monitoring mitigation compliance and permit

enforcement, including an estimate of how often agencies conduct followup visits, and determine whether level-of-service targets across agencies are

consistent and sufficient. Incorporated from action BH-7.

Responsible parties: DEP, SWFWMD, EPCHC

Schedule: 2007

BH-2
83

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Reduce Propeller Scarring of Seagrass and

Pursue Seagrass Restoration Opportunities at

Select Sites

ACTION: 

Reduce propeller scarring of seagrass, evaluate effectiveness of seagrass restoration

techniques, and pursue seagrass restoration opportunities at appropriate sites.

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

Substantial progress has been made in addressing this action. No-motor zones that

protect both seagrasses and manatees have been established in several areas of the

bay, including Weedon Island, Cockroach Bay, Shell Key and adjacent to Port

Manatee. In addition, slow speed zones have been established in other areas that also

serve to protect seagrasses from propeller damage. The largest of these is a 7-milelong shoreline zone in Hillsborough County (from Apollo Beach to E.G. Simmons

Park) that requires boaters to go slow in waters less than 6 feet deep. A similar buffer

zone designated in 2002 for Terra Ceia Bay requires boaters to go slow within 500

feet of shore. Pinellas County has enacted new ordinances that create or expand seagrass protection zones around Shell Key and Weedon Island. And in Cockroach Bay

and Fort DeSoto Park, some areas that had been off-limits to internal combustion

engines were re-opened because scarred seagrasses were recovering well.

A local rule review committee evaluated a state proposal for additional manatee protection areas in Tampa Bay, and issued its recommendations in mid-September 2003

(See FW-3). The FWC adopted new new manatee speed zones in 2004. Although

aimed primarily at manatee protection, the new zones — which require boaters to

travel at slow speed along several bay shorelines either year-round or seasonally —

also serve to protect seagrasses in these shallow areas.

Educational efforts aimed at promoting safe boating also have contributed to boater

awareness of this problem. Among these are the Tampa Bay Manatee Watch program,

which was administered by Tampa BayWatch and the Fish and Wildlife Marine

Research Institute under the guidance of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program’s Manatee

Awareness Coalition. Manatee Watch recruited and trained volunteers to provide

information and safe boating tools such as polarized sunglasses and nautical charts to

area boaters, both on the water and at area boat ramps. TBEP has been a major financial sponsor of Manatee Watch, which was initiated in 1999 and continued through

March 2003. 

Despite these accomplishments and successes, Tampa Bay continues to trail only the

Florida Keys in percentage of seagrasses scarred by boat propellers. Additionally,

results of a 3-year monitoring project conducted by FWRI as part of the Manatee

BH-3
84

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Watch program indicate that educational programs are generally not as effective as

regulatory efforts in influencing or changing boater behavior. Further evaluation of

techniques should include considering other seagrass protection programs such as the

“four point program” developed for the Florida Keys in the 1990s. TBEP’s Manatee

Awareness Coalition also revised its educational efforts in 2005 to refine target audiences, and bring in additional partners to help deliver its “Bay Friendly Boating” message.

A number of techniques have been proposed to assist in the restoration of seagrasses

in Tampa Bay, including experimental offshore bar restoration in areas receiving high

wave energy, understanding the effects of bioturbation (by rays and other animals) on

seagrass transplant success or new colonization, and seagrass planting. Several methods of transplanting are now being tried in Tampa Bay; however, the verdict is still

out on the long-term success of these techniques and a scientific monitoring program

to compare the effectiveness of the different methods was just initiated in 2004 as part

of an overall package of seagrass research.

Therefore, this action should remain a part of the CCMP for the next 5-year period.

This will allow managers to refine boater education programs to more successfully

reach target audiences and to assess the need for additional regulatory slow-speed

zones or additional waterway markers to protect seagrasses. Also expected in this time

frame are results of the research and monitoring programs assessing the success and

future viability of various seagrass restoration techniques. 

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Assess the comparative success and viability of various seagrass restoration

or mitigation techniques and scar reduction methods.

Responsible parties: FWRI, Southwest Florida Seagrass Working

Group for recommendations 

Schedule: FWRI transplant evaluation ongoing, finalized in 2004.

Evaluation of other techniques in 2004-2005

STEP 2 Following adoption of new manatee speed zones in 2004 (see FW-2)

specifically for those zones that are located in seagrass meadows, evaluate

the need for expanded no-motor or slow speed zones for seagrass protection.

Responsible parties: TBEP Seagrass Working Group for recommendations; implementation by local governments

Schedule: 2005-2006

STEP 3 Develop a coordinated program that combines appropriate seagrass restoration techniques in priority areas, if proven successful, with no-motor or

slow speed zones. 

Responsible parties: TBEP Seagrass Working Group for recommendations; implementation by local governments

Schedule: Following FWRI evaluation of transplanting methods and

evaluation of additional direct and indirect seagrass

restoration techniques

BH-3
85

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

STEP 4 Revise existing boater education programs to more effectively reach target

audiences.

Responsible parties: TBEP (through the Manatee Awareness

Coalition), FWRI

Schedule: Ongoing. Strategy revised in 2005.

BH-3
86

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Restrict Impacts to Hard-Bottom Communities

and Evaluate the Ecological Effects of Artificial

Hard-Bottom Habitat

ACTION: 

Restrict impacts to natural hard-bottom communities and evaluate the ecological

effects of artificial hard-bottom habitat.

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

While it is unclear how many acres of natural hard-bottom communities have been

lost in Tampa Bay, impacts to these vital habitats are not easily mitigated, and greater

recognition and protection is warranted. The rocky substrate provides an ideal surface

for colonization by a wide variety of sponges, corals and other marine invertebrates,

which in turn attract large numbers of fish. 

In the original CCMP, this action called for a comprehensive benthic survey of Tampa

Bay that would map natural hard-bottom communities, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of current permitting and mitigation rules in preserving hard bottom. Neither

of these action steps was ever initiated.

However, USGS plans a benthic survey that will utilize both acoustic and laser technology to identify bottom habitat types, providing the first comprehensive look at natural hard-bottom communities in the bay. And ABM has agreed to host a workshop to

evaluate the effectiveness of current permitting and mitigation rules related to hardbottom impacts.

Using established sonar technology, USGS researchers will survey bay bottom grids

by boat, running parallel track lines every 500-1000 meters. Additionally, the agency

is contracting with a NASA researcher to conduct flyovers of the bay to take laser pictures of shallow coastal areas that boat-mounted instruments can’t easily reach.

Combined, these methods will provide maximum coverage and detail. The benthic

survey is slated for completion in 2005-2006. 

The flyovers are part of an experimental approach to see how easily habitats can be

classified using laser light analyses of the coastline. Flying at about 1500 feet, the

plane will fire about 2000 laser light beams per second across the flight path to produce a 500-foot-wide picture of each target area. USGS and NASA hope to extract

habitat types from the LIDAR data by classifying each laser return signal.

Gulfstream’s new natural gas pipeline stretching across the Gulf of Mexico and into

lower Tampa Bay impacted nearly 20 acres of bay hard bottom. To mitigate impacts

from the pipeline, the company installed about 100 20x24’ shallow water reef modules

BH-4
87

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

in Lower Tampa Bay and transplanted 150 soft corals. The limestone in the modules

comes from an ancient reef site — now a limestone quarry – north of Tampa and was

designed to mimic natural hard bottom. Another 150 6x8’ deep-water reef modules,

and 20,000 tons of limestone boulders, were placed in the Gulf to mitigate for impacts

in Federal waters. EPC now requires mitigation of hard-bottom habitats in permitting.

Additional hard-bottom impacts are likely as a result of future harbor improvements.

The Corps of Engineers is in the preliminary stages of a Tampa Harbor General Reevaluation Study to evaluate recommendations for expanding and improving navigation, including the widening of the main ship channel to create a passing lane. The

Cut B widening is likely to make the final list. The Corps has established a Steering

Committee to assist with recommendations on the study, including hard bottom 

mitigation, and will coordinate with USGS in the final design of the bottom-mapping

study to ensure it gets the information it needs to assess environmental impacts of any

harbor improvements.

But along with impacts there have been gains stemming from the efforts of organizations such as Tampa BayWatch to restore oyster reefs along seawalls. The bay stewardship group plans to construct 300-500 oyster reef balls each year for placement in

front of residential and park seawalls. Assuming an average of three to five units at

each site, the program is expected to enhance about 1.25 miles of hardened shoreline

in the bay each year. Tampa BayWatch has already installed about 1000 of the units

along the waterfront in St. Petersburg and Tampa’s Bayshore Boulevard. The Manatee

County Artificial Reef program has installed another 500 reef balls at three locations

near Emerson Point and to the west in lower Tampa Bay. 

A related project is the construction of oyster reefs on natural shorelines in the bay

using clean, fossilized oyster shells as a base on which live oysters will recruit to form

natural oyster bars. BayWatch plans four community oyster bar construction events

each year. Bars already have been installed at Whiskey Stump and Green Keys, as

well as Fantasy Island. Projects are slated for Palomis Park in Tampa and the Davis

Tract in south Hillsborough County. The ecological effects (including the spread of

Asian green mussels) of these and other artificial hard-bottom habitats installed in the

bay, as well as natural hard-bottom habitats, have not yet been documented.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Assist in the development of recommendations to minimize or mitigate

hard-bottom impacts from the proposed Tampa Harbor Project.

Responsible parties: ACOE THP Steering Committee

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 2 Undertake a comprehensive benthic survey of Tampa Bay in order to map

the current and historic distribution of natural hard-bottom communities,

including oyster reefs and rocky limestone outcroppings. 

Responsible parties: USGS (for current) and TBEP (for historic)

Schedule: 2004-2005

BH-4
88

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

STEP 3 Evaluate the ecological impacts and/or benefits of hard-bottom habitat

installed in the bay, including reef balls, oyster reefs, seawalls and artificial

reefs. The potential effect of natural and artificial hard-bottom habitats on

the spread of invasive species such as the Asian green mussel will be an

important aspect of this effort.

Responsible parties: County artificial reef programs; Florida Sea

Grant or other research entity

Schedule: 2004-2005

STEP 4 Evaluate the effectiveness of existing mitigation for hard-bottom substrate

impacts in Tampa Bay.

Responsible parties: FDEP Beaches and Coastal Systems; FWC

Artificial Reef Group 

Schedule: 2004-2005

STEP 5 Evaluate the effectiveness of current permitting and mitigation rules, and

recommend improvements. Establishment of no fishing “reserves” and

buffer areas around hard-bottom substrates should be considered.

Responsible parties: ABM

Schedule: Following evaluation of existing mitigation

STEP 6 Implement the recommendations to increase protection of hard-bottom

habitats.

Responsible parties: FDEP

Schedule: To be determined from ABM evaluation

STEP 7 Develop bay-wide goals for protection and restoration of hard-bottom communities. Incorporate into the Bay Habitat Master Plan.

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: Following benthic survey

BH-4
89

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Encourage Waterfront Residents to Enhance

Shorelines and Limit Runoff from Yards

ACTION: 

Encourage waterfront residents to enhance shorelines and limit runoff from yards to

protect and improve water quality.

STATUS: 

Redirect focus to educational efforts.

BACKGROUND:

This action originally focused on the creation of property tax or other financial incentives to encourage habitat enhancement along seawalls, and the establishment of costsharing programs to promote group-permit shoreline enhancement projects.

There appears to be little interest among local governments in providing tax breaks for

waterfront homeowners who enhance their shorelines, although most permitting agencies now encourage or even require such enhancements instead of hardened seawalls,

where an alternative is viable. For example, the Tampa Port Authority – which is the

landlord of submerged lands in Hillsborough County – has revised its permitting rules

to encourage shoreline stabilization via native plants, rip-rap materials, etc. as

opposed to vertical seawalls. Other permitting agencies do the same.

Educational efforts in recent years also have heightened awareness of the benefits of

alternatives to traditional seawalls. Tampa BayWatch has launched a successful program to install reef balls or small oyster reefs off seawalls and docks. These small

reefs provide important habitat for barnacles, crabs, mussels and other marine creatures. BayWatch has set a goal of installing 300 seawall oyster reefs a year in the bay,

for a total of 1.25 miles of enhanced shoreline annually. The oyster reef program is

also heavily promoted by the Marine Extension Agent for this area.

Additionally, a wide variety of educational materials are available to inform residents

of the benefits of enhanced shorelines. TBEP’s Tampa Bay Repair Kit, and waterfront

property owners’ manuals developed by Pinellas County and the Florida Department

of Environmental Protection both promote the use of softened shorelines over vertical

seawalls. The FDEP manual offers detailed information about various alternative stabilization techniques. Additionally, DEP offers no-charge permits for property owners

who want to plant native vegetation along their shore to reduce erosion and provide

habitat.

The Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program provides technical assistance to waterfront homeowners who want to reduce stormwater runoff, improve water quality in

residential canals and enhance wildlife habitat through environmentally friendly landscaping.

BH-6
90

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

FDEP would be the lead agency in coordinating and implementing any rule revisions

necessary to streamline permitting for shoreline restoration projects, or to mandate

that habitat enhancement features be incorporated when seawalls are constructed or

repaired. Because of limited resources and other rulemaking priorities within the

agency, DEP prefers that priority be given to actions that do not require rulemaking. 

A realtor certification program is one logical way to expand messages about environmentally friendly waterfront development to a targeted audience. Realtors could

receive required continuing education credits for attending workshops organized by

TBEP and other partners. The workshops would explain wetlands, conservation easements, mangrove trimming restrictions, and other issues specifically associated with

living along the shore, as well as present information on the financial benefits to

homeowners of retaining natural shorelines and limiting yard runoff. The realtors

could use this knowledge as both a marketing tool and an information service for their

clients. An existing program developed by the Cooperative Extension Service, “Sell

Green and Profit,” could be expanded to address these concepts.

Another, existing program directed at a targeted audience is the Manatee Awareness

Coalition’s “Manatee Friendly Neighborhood” Program. This voluntary educational

program encourages waterfront homeowners to complete a minimum number of environmental activities from a broad menu of actions. Neighborhoods that complete five

of the activities receive a handsome sign to display at their community entrance designating them as a “Manatee Friendly Neighborhood.” Although this program is directed at manatee protection, it encompasses many water quality and habitat protection

activities that are relevant to this CCMP action.

STRATEGY: 

STEP 1 Redirect action, from creation of financial incentives to educational efforts

and programs, including targeted distribution of existing materials such as

FDEP’s Waterfront Property Owners Guide.

Responsible parties: FDEP, Florida Sea Grant, TBEP

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 2 Explore options for development of a Realtors Environmental Certification

Program.

Responsible parties: TBEP, County Extension Offices 

Schedule: Initiate in 2005

STEP 3 Expand participation in the Manatee Friendly Neighborhood Program.

Responsible parties: Manatee Awareness Coalition

Schedule: Ongoing

BH-6
91

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Expand Habitat Mapping and Monitoring

Programs

ACTION: 

Expand habitat mapping and monitoring programs to assess extent and quality of

emergent coastal habitats.

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

While long-running assessments of water quality, seagrasses and a benthic sampling

program created in 1993 have helped make Tampa Bay one of the best studied

estuaries in the world, bay managers still lack an effective program for monitoring the

extent and quality of emergent coastal habitats, including the conversion of habitat

type (i.e. marsh to mangrove). 

This update calls for renewed efforts to establish that monitoring component, while

continuing seagrass and benthic monitoring initiatives. 

SWFWMD continues to map seagrass acreage every two years using aerial photography, while local government partners help ground-truth seagrass quality at selected

transects throughout the bay. While coverage has increased by about 350 acres per

year since 1992, almost 2000 acres were lost baywide in a two-year period in the late

1990s when El Nino rains caused a dramatic upswing in bay nitrogen loadings.

Seagrass acreage recorded in January 2002 and again in 2004 showed a baywide

rebound, but seagrass continues to decline in parts of Old Tampa Bay, most notably in

the Feather Sound area, despite improving water quality. An intensive monitoring

program to examine this area more closely is now underway.

The Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County coordinates

benthic, or bay bottom, monitoring with participation from Manatee and Pinellas

counties. About 120 samples are analyzed each year for the presence of contaminants

and to determine the abundance and diversity of organisms living in the sediments.

Bay sediment samples taken from 1995 to 2000 show no significant changes in contamination in the bay since 1993 when intensive sediment sampling began, although

additional hot spots in rivers and some bay areas were identified. Most of these hot

spots are in the lower Hillsborough and Palm rivers, where targeted sampling didn’t

commence until 1997. 

Since no significant changes in bottom contamination have been apparent in most

areas, the benthic sampling program was revised slightly beginning in 2002. The

sampling program revisions resulted in a reduction of the number of sites sampled in

each bay segment per year. Since 2002, the balance of program resources has been

diverted to sample identified hot spots more intensely. After two or three years of

sampling hot spots, the overall annual level of effort for baywide benthic quality sampling is expected to be reduced.

BH-8
92

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY Monitoring results are released every 3-5 years in a Baywide Environmental

Monitoring Report (BEMR). The Baywide Environmental Monitoring Program is a

collaboration of the Estuary Program, Manatee and Pinellas counties, the

Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, the City of Tampa,

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Research

Institute, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, National Audubon

Society, Tampa Bay Water, and the University of South Florida. All partners participate in field collection and research, but each partner has a unique niche or area of

specialization to provide baywide analyses for a specific monitoring element. 

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Develop and implement a monitoring program to track habitat quantity and

quality in coastal marshes and mangrove forests, oligohaline habitats and

isolated freshwater wetlands, hard bottom and oyster reef communities, and

associated uplands, including natural, restored or created habitats. Also,

implement a mapping program for invasive plants.

Responsible parties: TBEP Habitat Subcommittee for program development, particularly how to measure and track

habitat quantity and quality; include Sarasota

Bay NEP and Mote Marine Laboratory.

Implementation to be determined.

Schedule: 2004 for program development

STEP 2 Continue seagrass aerial mapping and transect monitoring to assess habitat

quality. 

Responsible parties: SWFWMD for seagrass aerial mapping; participants in Seagrass Working Group for transect

monitoring; City of Tampa for data analyses of

transect monitoring.

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 3 Continue benthic monitoring program to analyze sediments for contaminants and assess the health of benthic communities. 

Responsible parties: EPCHC, Pinellas County, Manatee County

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 4 Map priority seagrass restoration areas, including seagrass protection areas.

Responsible parties: FWRI

Schedule: Following identification of successful seagrass planting

techniques

BH-8
93

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Maintain Seasonal Freshwater Flows in Rivers

ACTION: 

Establish and maintain minimum seasonal freshwater flows in rivers.

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

State legislation enacted in 1996 directs Water Management Districts to set “minimum

flows” for rivers that define the limits at which further withdrawals would be “significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area.” 

Scientists considered the need for a separate minimum flow for the bay at a 1999

TBEP workshop, but concluded that minimum flows for the rivers should be adequate

to protect the bay’s health. Janet Llewellyn, FDEP state lead on MFLs, stated that

ideally it is best to start in the estuaries and work upstream when developing flow

requirements, but estuaries are the most difficult water bodies for which to set MFLs.

She suggests that, since SWFWMD is currently doing MFLs on a river-by-river basis,

the agency should complete the MFL work and then do a composite analysis addressing effects on the bay. If the cumulative effect of MFLs from the rivers does not 

protect the bay, then the tributary MFLs should be revisited.

A minimum flow for the lower Hillsborough River set in 2001 stipulates that flows

below the dam shall not drop below 10 cubic feet per second or about 6.5 million

gallons a day. About half of the time over the past 10 years there has been no water

flowing over the dam. USGS and SWFWMD scientists are collecting data that will

be used to reevaluate the minimum flow beginning in 2005.

For now, the City of Tampa is meeting the flow requirements by re-routing water

upstream from Sulphur Springs to the base of the dam. However, the city hopes to

supplement river flows beginning in 2007 with 6 mgd of the average of 50 mgd of

treated wastewater now discharged into Hillsborough Bay from the Howard Curren

treatment plant – while piping most of the balance north to New Tampa, Northwest

Hillsborough and Pasco counties for irrigation. Construction began in late 2004 on a

pipeline that will carry water from the plant to the river and through New Tampa to

the Hillsborough-Pasco line, with ultimate connections to reclaimed water systems in

Pasco County, Northwest Hillsborough County and Temple Terrace. 

SWFWMD expects to finalize recommendations on minimum flows for Sulfur

Springs and the estuarine portion of the Alafia River in 2006. Minimum flows also

are scheduled for the Tampa Bypass Canal and upper Hillsborough River in 2006, to

be followed by the Manatee (including the Braden River estuary), Little Manatee and

Anclote rivers in 2007. 

FI-1
94

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Regional water supply development and reuse plans illustrate the challenges of balancing water supply and ecological concerns. Meeting demand for drinking water in

the fast-growing region and reducing groundwater pumping at overstressed well fields

requires new water supplies that cannot be met through conservation alone. Tampa

Bay Water, the region’s largest water supplier, approved a strategic plan in 1995 to

address those needs. 

Many projects in the first phase of the Master Water Plan began operating in 2002 and

early 2003, allowing groundwater pumping at 11 long-producing well fields to be

reduced ahead of schedule. The first phase of the Master Water Plan includes pumping

stations to harvest drinking water from the Alafia and Hillsborough Rivers and Tampa

Bypass Canal for treatment and distribution through Tampa Bay Water’s regional system. Excess water from these sources is stored in a regional reservoir in southeast

Hillsborough County that was completed in 2005. The plan also includes a new 25

mgd seawater desalination plant near Apollo Beach that began operating in March

2003 and has operated intermittently since then. 

Tampa Bay Water board members will evaluate possible projects for Configuration 2

of the Master Water Plan, including a second desal plant on the Gulf Coast near the

Anclote River, after reviewing updated future water demand projections. Configuration 2 projects would potentially add another 15 mgd of water.

While modeling studies suggest that recently implemented surface water withdrawals

will have a negligible impact on the bay, independent monitoring will be critical in

detecting any cumulative or long-term impacts. 

Surface water withdrawals are being closely evaluated by a comprehensive hydro-biological monitoring program (HBMP) funded by Tampa Bay Water and a separate

Hillsborough Independent Monitoring Program (HIMP) funded by Hillsborough

County. Both monitoring programs were implemented in 2000 to collect baseline data

prior to new surface water withdrawals and the startup of the region’s new desalination plant. Researchers are also incorporating historical data from long-running water

quality and fisheries monitoring programs to identify long-term trends. 

The HBMP tracks water quality, plankton, fisheries, benthic invertebrates, vegetation

and bird use to detect shifts that might be associated with changes in freshwater flows.

Field work is extensive with scientists evaluating an estimated 11,000 water grab samples, 800 benthic samples and 720 fisheries samples per year. Hillsborough’s HIMP

seeks to corroborate those results with water sampling at 30 sites on the Hillsborough

River, 43 on the Alafia River and 60 near the desalination plant at Big Bend. 

This action calls for an evaluation of the potential effects that MFLs may have on

meeting protection and restoration goals for oligohaline areas in rivers, with an initial

focus on those water bodies which are scheduled for MFL adoption in 2006. Other

potential indicators for changes in freshwater inflow, such as oyster bars, will also be

examined. The action also calls for close evaluation of the results of ongoing 

monitoring initiatives to assess cumulative impacts, including reclaimed water projects, while continuing to move forward with the establishment of minimum flows

formajor tributaries to Tampa Bay.

FI-1
95

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 To assist with the evaluation of progress towards TBEP habitat 

restoration and protection goals, convene a workshop to assess potential

effects of proposed MFL determinations (Minimum Flows and

Levels determinations) on existing and potential oligohaline habitat (water

column and vegetation), initially for Sulfur Springs and the Alafia River.

Include discussion of Southern Water Use Caution Area in Alafia River

evaluation.

Responsible parties: TBEP and SWFWMD

Schedule: workshop held in November 2003

STEP 2 Establish seasonal flow requirements for Tampa Bay tributaries in 

accordance with schedule adopted by SWFWMD Governing Board, 

considering recommendations from advisors in previous step.

Responsible parties: SWFWMD

Schedule: As adopted by SWFWMD Governing Board

STEP 3 Evaluate results of Tampa Bay Water’s hydro-biological monitoring pro

gram (HBMP) and Hillsborough County’s independent monitoring program

(HIMP) for impacts to area tributaries and the bay from surface water with

drawals. 

Responsible parties: Tampa Bay Water and EPCHC

Schedule: Annual Science Review Committee meeting convened 

by Tampa Bay Water

STEP 4 Periodically estimate total freshwater flow from all sources to the bay.

Responsible parties: SWFWMD and TBEP

Schedule: Every 5 years, starting in 2005

FI-1
96

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY Bay Fish & Wildlife

A belted kingfisher prepares to enjoy a hard-won killifish breakfast. Kingfishers are

common inhabitants of low-salinity wetlands bordering the bay, where they are

often seen diving for small fish and crustaceans.

Photo by Bryon Chamberlin
97

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

FW-1

Increase On-Water Enforcement of

Environmental Regulations on the Bay 

ACTION: 

Continue to seek ways to improve enforcement of environmental regulations on the

bay.

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

In the original CCMP, strategies for implementing this action focused on increasing

the percentage of revenues from the Saltwater Fishing License allocated to marine law

enforcement – an objective which has not yet been achieved, and for which prospects

appear dim in the near future.

Despite this, some progress has been made in improving on-water enforcement of

environmental laws in the Tampa Bay region. For example, the merger of fresh and

saltwater law enforcement agencies within the relatively new Florida Fish and

Wildlife Conservation Commission has expanded the pool of officers trained to

enforce both salt and freshwater regulations, and provided officials the flexibility to

shift officers around to target “hot spots” or priority problems, such as illegal gill-netting. And the revamping of the Wildlife Alert program to offer rewards to citizens who

report marine – as well as inland – fishing violations also has helped to boost compliance with on-water laws.

Additionally, an unusual coalition was formed between traditional adversaries on the

question of enforcing manatee speed zone laws. Marine manufacturers and boat 

owners joined conservationists in supporting a bill that redirected part of the fuels tax

paid at marinas to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The money will

grow from $2 million in 2004 to $12 million after five years and will pay for an

increase in law enforcement on the water. This should save both manatee and human

lives as boats slow down in some coastal waters in response to a greater presence of

wildlife officers.

Local governments have generally expanded their on-water enforcement presence, as

well as assuming a larger role in resource protection and regulation in general. In fact,

two substantial manatee/seagrass protection zones have been created by local ordinance in the last three years – one expanding the Weedon Island Preserve in Pinellas

County, and another creating a 7-mile-long slow speed buffer in southeastern

Hillsborough County. Additional manatee protection zones were established by the

state in Terra Ceia Bay and the Alafia River in 2002, and can be enforced by both

state and local marine enforcement personnel. Pinellas County expects to adopt yet

another seagrass protection zone in 2004, a slow speed zone stretching from the

Courtney Campbell Causeway north to the Safety Harbor area. Additionally, several
98

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW-1

new state manatee protection zones, both year-round and seasonal, were adopted in

2004, including an extensive slow-speed zone along the shoreline of eastern Tampa

Bay from the Courtney Campbell Causeway to the Gandy Bridge.

But, as with the state, local communities also have limited resources to devote to onwater law enforcement, and the recent shift in focus to Homeland Security has further

strained existing capabilities.

To maximize manpower commitments, FWC is piloting a program called “Trained

Eyes – Coastwatch” with members of the Florida Guides Association in Tampa Bay.

FWC law enforcement officers train professional guides to recognize and report 

fisheries violations – especially netting infractions. Participating guides are equipped

with mobile phones that allow them to contact law enforcement officers directly

without having to go through emergency operators. Local FWC officials report that

this system has resulted in several arrests and citations of net fishermen violating state

law. The program has been so successful that it may be expanded to other parts of the

state.

A promising potential substitute for law enforcement may be the increasing number of

community-driven boater education initiatives, such as those developed by Tampa

BayWatch and TBEP’s Manatee Awareness Coalition. These efforts help to foster

good environmental stewardship among boaters and anglers, while also serving as

additional eyes on the water to report violations.

Adequate marine enforcement in a water body as large as Tampa Bay will remain a

challenge for the foreseeable future. Currently, there are only 28 full-time state marine

patrol officers in the Tampa Bay region – or about one officer for every 3,867 registered boats. That is triple the statewide average of one officer for every 1,200 boats –

and the Tampa Bay area remains one of the state’s fastest growing.

This action is being redirected to support expansion of boater education initiatives to

reduce the need for enforcement, and to promote increased cooperation among

federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to maximize effectiveness.

Additionally, TBEP will encourage the utilization of new Homeland Security personnel at area ports to identify and investigate fisheries and other marine violations.

STRATEGY: 

STEP 1 Continue support for boater and angler education initiatives which reduce

the need for enforcement.

Responsible parties: TBEP, Tampa BayWatch, local governments,

FWC, FDEP

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 2 Train homeland security personnel at area ports and waterfront military

installations to report and/or investigate fish and wildlife law violations as

part of their duties.

Responsible parties: FWC Law Enforcement, Tampa Port Authority,

Manatee Port Authority, St. Petersburg Port
99

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

FW-1

Authority, MacDill AFB, US Coast Guard

Auxiliary

Schedule: If this option proves to be feasible, training could begin in

late 2006

STEP 3 Convene a workshop for federal, state and local law enforcement officials

to encourage joint enforcement of new manatee zones, and to discuss efficient methods of maximizing enforcement of marine laws in general. 

Responsible parties: TBEP, FWC

Schedule: Workshops for local and state law enforcement personnel

were held in summer 2005 to familiarize them with new

state manatee zones in Upper Tampa Bay. Additional

workshops will be scheduled in 2006 as manatee zones

elsewhere in the bay are posted.
100

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW-2

Establish and Enforce Manatee Protection

Zones

ACTION: 

Increase manatee protection around the bay.

STATUS: 

Complete. Continue to monitor implementation and support boater education programs.

BACKGROUND:

This action appears to be complete as outlined in the original CCMP. Substantial 

manatee protection zones have been established by local ordinance or state rule near

Weedon Island in Pinellas County, around TECO’s Big Bend and Port Sutton power

plants in Hillsborough County, along the southeastern shore of Tampa Bay from

Apollo Beach to Ruskin, and in Terra Ceia Bay. Additional state manatee protection

zones were adopted by the FWC in September 2004 and should be posted sometime

in 2005. These zones protect shallow-water manatee habitat in the Manatee and

Braden rivers, Anna Maria Sound, the Rocky Creek area of Hillsborough County, the

South Tampa area between the Courtney Campbell and Gandy Bridges, and Pinellas

County from the Courtney Campbell north to Oldsmar. 

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program’s Manatee Awareness Coalition (MAC) has played a

key role in this issue, as has a lawsuit agreement between several environmental

groups and state and federal wildlife agencies that has accelerated the creation of

manatee refuges and sanctuaries throughout Florida. The counties surrounding Tampa

Bay have led the way statewide in manatee protection efforts, opting to designate

many protection zones proactively through community negotiation and consensus

rather than waiting for state or federal mandates.

Initiated in 1998, the Manatee Awareness Coalition has served as a community forum

for open discussion of manatee protection issues, bringing together often-conflicting

interests in a cooperative atmosphere. The MAC also spearheaded the creation of the

Tampa Bay Manatee Watch program, an innovative education effort that recruited and

trained more than 100 volunteers to provide safe boating information and tools to

boaters, both on the water and at key boat ramps. 

From 1999-2002, Manatee Watch volunteers contributed more than 1,500 volunteer

hours and distributed some 1,000 boater kits (containing polarized sunglasses, nautical

charts and other useful tools) to area boaters, encouraging boaters to “go slow, pole or

troll” in shallow waters where manatees feed or rest. A companion 3-year monitoring

program conducted by the Florida Marine Research Institute assessed the effectiveness of the program compared to regulatory initiatives.

Other accomplishments of the MAC include:
101

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

FW-2

• Forging a partnership with U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary flotillas in Tampa

Bay wherein Auxiliary instructors were trained by MAC members to

incorporate key messages about manatee and seagrass protection in their

popular Safe Boating Course.

• Expanding the Manatee Watch program to waterfront neighborhoods with

a high percentage of boat owners. “Neighborhood Manatee Watch”

encourages communities to protect manatees by selecting from a menu of

activities, such as posting manatee caution signs on docks or creating a

neighborhood manatee sighting network. Neighborhoods completing a

minimum number of activities are designated “Manatee Friendly

Communities” and receive a special sign to post at their entrance. A

MAC member serves as a personal advisor for each neighborhood to help

them implement their Manatee Watch program.

Despite this intensive educational effort, monitoring of boater compliance with

voluntary go-slow zones indicates that regulation is generally more effective than

education in changing boater behavior. While it is possible that more official manatee

speed zones may be designated in Tampa Bay in the future, it is not feasible to expect

that all areas of Tampa Bay used by manatees will be placed under regulatory protection. Therefore, education will continue to be an important component of manatee

protection strategies. The MAC continues to support boater education as a valuable

tool in protecting manatees and encouraging bay stewardship in general, and in 2005

launched a new “Bay Friendly Boater” education campaign to provide safe boating

tools and information specifically to new boaters. 

STRATEGY: 

STEP 1 Continue to monitor implementation.

• Support local government initiatives to designate additional manatee protection zones if warranted.

Responsible parties: TBEP, FWC

Schedule: Ongoing, as needed

• Work with the Manatee Awareness Coalition, Tampa BayWatch and other

education-oriented groups to refine educational materials and messages to

improve boater compliance with non-regulatory manatee protection

efforts.

Responsible parties: TBEP, all member organizations of the Manatee

Awareness Coalition

Schedule: Ongoing. The MAC revised its boater education strategy in

2005 and will be producing new programs and materials as

a result.
102

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW-3

Support Bay Scallop Restoration

ACTION: 

Continue to support and monitor bay scallop restoration.

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

While water quality in lower Tampa Bay appears to be sufficient to allow bay scallops

to survive, efforts at restoring a viable recreational scallop fishery in the bay have not

yet been successful after a decade of work. Possible reasons for this include: high

rates of predation on juvenile and adult scallops; historic loss of preferred seagrass

habitats; susceptibility to red tide; and mortality caused by excessive turbidity from

boat wakes and roller trawls used by bait shrimpers in areas where scallops have been

transplanted. The Great Bay Scallop Search, an annual Tampa BayWatch event that

recruits volunteers to snorkel grass beds in the lower bay looking for scallops, was

halted when the number of scallops reported during the event dipped over time to only

a handful and finally to none. The event was revived in 2004 and volunteers found 12

scallops in the bay, giving hope to restoration efforts and incentive to continue the

community monitoring survey on an annual basis. However, a severe and prolonged

red tide that reached into the lower bay in 2005 impacted scallop survival, and only

one live scallop was found in the 2005 Scallop Search.

Previous research efforts have vastly increased scientific knowledge of the water

quality and habitat needs of bay scallops, and improved techniques for successfully

rearing scallops in hatcheries such as those operated by the University of South

Florida. 

Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Tampa BayWatch and USF are

collaborating on another study of scallop survival in Tampa Bay, funded through the

Pollution Recovery Trust Fund. This one-year study will expand transplanting efforts

– concentrated in past years on the waters between Tierra Verde and the Sunshine

Skyway Bridge — to other areas of the bay where good scallop habitat remains and

boat access is restricted. Study sites in this new project include Weedon Island,

Cockroach Bay, Coquina Key and waters around MacDill Air Force Base. 

Scallops will be placed in these areas in both protected cages within seagrass beds,

and in mesh bags suspended from nearby homeowner docks. Scientists will track and

compare growth, survival, mortality, and recruitment of scallops in both the cages and

the mesh bags, to assess which method works best and which locations appear favorable for scallop survival and reproduction. Funding to expand this project is being

sought from the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Recognizing that the factors that led to the bay scallop’s decline in Tampa Bay

occurred over a long period, and that efforts to bring scallops back to the bay will
103

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

FW-3

likely take a comparable period of time, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program will continue to encourage and support research and restocking efforts. 

STRATEGY: 

STEP 1 Continue to monitor restocking efforts in the bay. Assist in identifying

potential funding sources for research and restocking, and lend support to

grant requests for transplanting of scallops in Tampa Bay. 

Responsible Parties: TBEP

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 2 Continue to support the Great Bay Scallop Search and other scallop

monitoring programs.

Responsible Parties: Tampa BayWatch, TBEP, FWC, Mote Marine

Laboratory

Schedule: Ongoing, annually or whenever the Scallop Search is held
104

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW-4

Assess the Need to Investigate the Cumulative

Impacts of Power Plant Entrainment on

Fisheries

ACTION: 

Assess the need to investigate cumulative impacts of power plant entrainment and

impingement on fisheries.

STATUS:

Complete. Monitor implementation of new EPA power plant intake rule.

BACKGROUND:

New rules proposed by EPA under section 316b of the Clean Water Act could 

significantly reduce the number of aquatic creatures killed in power plant cooling

water intakes. The proposed rule would require new and aging power plants to install

technology to reduce impacts or demonstrate to permitting authorities that protecting

wetlands or restoring degraded habitat provides a comparable environmental benefit.

The new standards will apply unless a power plant can show its costs for compliance

are significantly higher than EPA estimates and outweigh environmental benefits. 

Few large power plants in the U.S. have installed the technology necessary to combat

significant mortality from entrainment. TECO’s Big Bend power plant — where

some equipment and screens have been installed to keep organisms from washing

through — is an exception. 

Most casualties are fish eggs and larvae that pass through the power plant cooling

systems (entrainment). Others aquatic animals die after hitting metal screens or racks

designed to keep debris outside the plant (impingement). EPA estimates that the rule

would affect 550 facilities nationwide and cost $265 million annually to implement,

while producing an economic benefit to recreational and commercial fisheries of as

much as $700 million per year.

EPA expects to finalize the new rule in early 2005, but implementation will not occur

all at once. Power plants would be required to comply as their permits come up for

renewal.

The rule would affect 25 of 43 power plants in Florida including three in Tampa Bay

– TECO’s Big Bend and Gannon/Bayside complexes on Tampa Bay’s eastern shore

and the Progress Energy Bartow Plant at Weedon Island. Collectively, these plants

use more than 2 billion gallons of bay water per day to cool power plant boilers that

generate steam to produce electricity.

While it is difficult to assess the impact of power plant entrainment and impingement

on fisheries because of the absence of baseline studies, estimates from power plant

monitoring in the 1980s suggest that more than 350 billion fish eggs and larvae are
105

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

FW-4

lost annually in Tampa Bay. What actual impact that represents, however, is uncertain

since only a fraction of larval fish survive to adulthood under natural conditions.

A case study of Tampa Bay conducted as part of the technical review for the new EPA

rule estimates that power plants cost the bay almost $22 million annually in recreational fish losses. Information on the proposed rule and the Tampa Bay case study is

available online at www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b.

Further studies on entrainment and impingement in Tampa Bay are unwarranted at

this time.

STRATEGY: 

STEP 1 Track implementation of new EPA power plant intake rule, expected to be

finalized in 2005. 

Responsible parties: EPA

Schedule: Report annually after implementation is initiated

STEP 2 Provide an overview of the new power plant intake rules to the TAC and

Management Board, including entrainment and temperature requirements.

Responsible parties: EPA and TBEP

Schedule: 2005, following finalization of rule
106

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW-5

Continue and Expand the Critical Fisheries

Monitoring Program

ACTION: 

Continue the Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program.

STATUS: 

Complete. Continue to support long-term funding of the program.

BACKGROUND:

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute’s Fisheries Independent Monitoring

program (FIM) evaluates the status and trends of fisheries in Tampa Bay and is a key

component of the bay’s overall monitoring program. The FIM program employs 

stratified random sampling to determine the abundance and distribution of adult and

juvenile species. Two hundred samples are collected monthly at randomly selected

sites. Surveys record the number, species and length of fish captured, and other environmental indicators. Researchers also sample fish flesh for mercury contamination

and conduct a quick visual inspection for lesions. Monthly fixed-station monitoring

has been discontinued in lieu of continuing year-round random sampling, which is a

better method for assessing changes in the status of fisheries baywide. 

The program is financed by state saltwater fishing license revenues, supplemented by

federal dollars from the Sport Fish Restoration Fund and local funding from Tampa

Bay Water and SWFWMD. Each year, about $3 million is allocated for the FIM program statewide, with roughly $600,000 dedicated to sampling in Tampa Bay.

The FIM program was expanded in 2000 as a result of a comprehensive hydrobiological monitoring program (HBMP) funded by Tampa Bay Water to assess

impacts from freshwater withdrawals. Additional monitoring also has been supported

by the Southwest Florida Water Management District as a part of the field work being

conducted to establish minimum flows and levels. 

Sampling has increased substantially in the Alafia River, and the Hillsborough and

Palm rivers have been added to the monitoring program. These rivers are being

sampled up to the fresh water regions or water control structure. Fisheries monitoring continues in the Little Manatee and Manatee rivers.

Expansion of the program to include sampling further upstream and in under-sampled

rivers is yielding a better overall picture of the status of bay fisheries. Permitted water

withdrawals from these rivers have made monitoring a key priority. However, the

funding for the expanded monitoring is available only for a few years and no longterm sources have been identified.

The pre-operational phase of the HBMP is now complete and a baseline report was

submitted to SWFWMD in July 2003. The first post-operational report is due in July

2006. 
107

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

FW-5

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Continue the Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program, and evaluate sampling

near the new seawater desalination plant to assess potential fisheries

impacts. Ensure long-term funding to maintain the program so that it continues to include oligohaline regions. 

Responsible parties: FWC-FWRI

Schedule: Ongoing
108

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW-6

Preserve the Diversity and Abundance of Bay

Wildlife

ACTION: 

Protect important wildlife populations in the Tampa Bay watershed. 

STATUS: 

New action to support research, management and education to protect populations of

listed species and other important wildlife in the Tampa Bay watershed.

BACKGROUND:

The Tampa Bay watershed supports more than 40 species currently listed as rare or

endangered by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. These

animals span the range of bay habitats, from those that dwell in the bay or its major

tributaries, to those that reside in the marshes, tidal streams, freshwater wetlands,

sandy beaches and upland forests surrounding the bay proper.

Several of these species have been well-documented; the status of others is unclear

and warrants further investigation. Additionally, many other species not currently

listed as rare or endangered may deserve protection, based on best available information.

For example:

• Recent landings data for blue crabs, a commercially and recreationally

important species, indicate a decline in crabs of harvestable size in the

bay. However, whether this decline represents a long-term trend, or a

temporary downturn based on rainfall, fishing pressure, or other factors, is 

uncertain. Researchers with the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute are 

currently conducting a study of blue crabs in the bay which may lead to 

harvest restrictions – such as a closed season on harvests – by the FWC in 

the near future.

• Population estimates of horseshoe crabs also are unknown, and this

species may face increased pressure from harvest for medical purposes as

well as continued loss of spawning beaches due to development. FWRI

currently is compiling an inventory of important nesting beaches for

horseshoe crabs in Tampa Bay as an important step toward assessing the

status of this species.

• Anecdotal reports indicate that seahorses were once common in the seagrass meadows of the bay, and may have declined significantly in recent

decades due to loss of habitat or water quality. But no census of seahorses

has been conducted, and this species also may face pressure from harvest

for the aquarium or medicinal trades. A small survey of seahorses was
109

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

FW-6

conducted in 2004-2005 by University of Tampa researchers with a grant

from the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. This study provides important

baseline data on abundance, species composition, and habitat utilization. 

• Diamondback terrapins are a shy, infrequently seen reptile that inhabits

mangrove forests in the bay. Mortality of terrapins in crab traps is thought

to be a significant threat to the long-term health of this species throughout

its range, but research in Tampa Bay is lacking. As part of a planned

derelict crab trap removal program to be launched in Tampa Bay in 2004,

herpetologist George Heinrich is documenting terrapin deaths in crab

traps, providing important baseline data that may assist in developing

effective management strategies for this species.

A key theme of the October 2003 Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium was

the need to better define the role and function of small tidal streams in the bay ecosystem. Although FWRI has documented the importance of the major rivers in the bay

system to commercially and recreationally important fish, a similar effort is needed to

assess the use of smaller streams and creeks by juvenile or adult fish and shellfish.

There are an estimated 100 of these smaller streams flowing into the bay. A two-year

Tidal Tributaries Habitat Assessment project will address four tidal tributary systems

in 2005-2007.

In addition to these emerging research and management needs, the bay’s spectacular

bird populations warrant additional monitoring. Audubon of Florida manages and

posts some 15 critically important natural or manmade islands in the bay system that

annually host as many as 40,000 pairs of approximately 25 species; however, as

restoration of manmade spoil islands continues through the efforts of local governments and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, additional efforts will

be needed to protect these expanded nesting areas. Beach-nesting species such as

terns, plovers and black skimmers also warrant special attention as their habitat is

increasingly limited by coastal development, as do species such as the white ibis

which are especially vulnerable to losses of freshwater wetlands that provide food for

their young.

This action will serve as an umbrella action to encourage protection of all bay

wildlife, and to support research and land acquisition/restoration efforts aimed at

preserving the abundance and diversity of Tampa Bay’s wildlife.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Continue to implement the Tampa Bay Habitat Restoration Master Plan.

Responsible parties: Local governments, state and federal agencies, 

private entities

Schedule: Ongoing; Updated Habitat Masterplan due in 2006

STEP 2 Convene a TAC workshop to identify key species at risk and in need of

management action in Tampa Bay.

Responsible parties: TBEP, FWC and USFWS 

Schedule: 2005
110

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW-6

STEP 3 Support research/assessment of existing populations of key indicator

species.

Responsible parties: FWC-FWRI, USFWS

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 4 Solicit TBEP Mini-Grants for specific education, research, or management

projects that address key species.

Responsible parties: TBEP Mini-Grant program

Schedule: Initiated in 2005 Mini-Grant cycle

STEP 5 Increase awareness of bird rookeries with signs, PSAs, and at boat and jet

ski rental businesses. Recruit citizen groups and neighborhoods to monitor

nesting areas through the Project Colony Watch program.

Responsible parties: Audubon of Florida and local Audubon chapters; local governments; TBEP MAC; FDEP

Aquatic Preserves; FWC

Schedule: Ongoing
111

CHARTING

the COURSE Dredging & Dredged FOR TAMPA BAY

Material Management

Dredging to maintain Tampa Bay’s shipping channels generates about a million cubic

yards of material each year, enough to fill Raymond James Stadium 10 times.

Photo courtesy of the Tampa Port Authority
112

ACTION PLAN Dredging & Dredged Material Management CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

DR-1

Manage Dredging and Dredged Material in

Tampa Bay

ACTION: 

Implement the long-term dredging and dredged material management strategy for

Tampa Bay.

STATUS: 

Complete as written. 

BACKGROUND:

This action is essentially complete as written in the original CCMP.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed the long-term dredge material management plan for Tampa Bay in July 2000. The report outlined dredging projections,

spoil placement options, and capacity shortfalls, noting that existing dredge disposal

sites may be full to capacity within five to ten years unless steps are taken soon to

expand storage areas or find beneficial uses for the material.

The long-term plan will be updated to incorporate new projections for capacity, shortfall and timing based on reassessments and recent surveys of islands 2D and 3D,

along with updates on beneficial use projects.

Dredging to maintain the bay’s nautical highways – up to 43 feet deep in places –

generates about a million cubic yards of material each year, enough to fill Raymond

James Stadium 10 times. Sediment dredged from the upper portions of the bay, where

most dredging occurs, has traditionally been piped onto two manmade islands in

Hillsborough Bay but they are rapidly reaching capacity. An offshore dredged

material site with unknown capacity receives sediment material from the lower bay.

Plans are being finalized now to double the height of the dikes on the Hillsborough

Bay spoil islands to 40 feet using dredged material already stored inside the dikes.

That will increase total capacity to about 30 million cubic yards each, extending the

life of the dikes until at least 2030. Another option calls for raising the dikes again,

this time to 50 feet, when additional capacity is needed.

Since 1999, the Corps has found beneficial uses for all material from federal dredging

projects in the bay, reflecting its strong commitment to alternative options. Beneficial

use projects – including stabilizing the shoreline at Egmont Key— helped redirect

almost 2 million cubic yards of sediment. Another 200,000 cubic yards of sediment

from maintenance dredging in the Alafia River is being used to create a series of habitats at abandoned shell pits near Cockroach Bay. 

One of the challenges in identifying beneficial uses is that the Corps must find “the

least-cost environmentally acceptable” option, which limits alternatives. Another is

that most dredged material from Tampa Bay is not suitable for beach renourishment,
113

ACTION PLAN Dredging & Dredged Material Management CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

DR-1

and even when it is, the cost of transporting the material is too high. 

Finding non-federal partners to help support and fund beneficial use projects will be

critical for these projects to materialize in the future.

One possible use for material from maintenance dredging may be filling manmade

holes dug decades ago for fill material used to create residential finger canals, but

only in cases where filling or partially filling the holes will improve habitat value.

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute and EPC

spearheaded an effort to assess habitat value in existing holes, with the assistance of

local fishermen. That research project identified three holes where filling or partial

filling might enhance water quality and habitat, while concluding that eight holes

should be left intact. Another beneficial use the Corps is considering is re-creating

longshore bars in areas where tidal flows may be restricting seagrass recovery.

Habitat restoration projects such as the one at Cockroach Bay also are attractive, saving taxpayers money that would otherwise be spent on fill material.

Another idea in the formative stages is to use rocky dredged material to enhance hard

bottom habitat in Tampa Bay.

While discussions of dredged material often focus on new construction, material from

maintenance dredging currently outpaces new work by a ratio of 3:1. According to

the Corps, maintenance dredging will create an estimated 30 million cubic yards of

material through 2030, compared with about 11 million cubic yards in planned construction projects. That doesn’t include projections from the expansion at Port

Manatee, which has its own upland disposal site.

The ratio may change as the Corps completes its projections related to the Tampa

Harbor and St. Petersburg Harbor Re-evaluation studies. For instance, widening the

shipping channel to create a “passing zone” for ships near the turnoff to Port Manatee

might generate from 1.5 to 2.8 million cubic yards of material. Along with the costs – 

estimated at $20 million – scientists must also consider the environmental impact of

further widening the channel (including the impacts of ship wakes) and other projects

being pursued.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Complete annual updates to the long-term dredging and dredged material

management plan, including new projections on capacity and shortfalls. 

Responsible parties: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Schedule: Annual updates

STEP 2 Continue to pursue beneficial uses for dredged material to facilitate and

accelerate bay habitat restoration and enhancement supporting the CCMP,

identify cost-sharing sponsors, and encourage expedited permitting for beneficial uses. 

Responsible parties: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; FDEP

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 3 Identify critical environmental issues and potential impacts associated with
114

ACTION PLAN Dredging & Dredged Material Management CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

DR-1

the Tampa and St. Petersburg Harbor Re-evaluation studies for delivery to

ACOE.

Responsible parties: ABM and TBEP TAC joint workshop

Schedule: Comments submitted in 2005

STEP 4 Ensure that environmental impacts are adequately addressed in the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers Tampa and St. Petersburg Harbor Reevaluation

studies. 

Responsible parties: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Schedule: Ongoing
115

CHARTING

the COURSE Spill Prevention & FOR TAMPA BAY

Response

Tampa Bay is a bustling center of maritime commerce, with more than 4,000 large

vessel transits each year supporting three deepwater ports. Petroleum products

accounted for 38% of the cargo traffic at the Port of Tampa in 2005, followed by

products related to the fertilizer industry.

Photo by Mary Kelley Hoppe
116

ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Establish an Integrated Vessel Traffic

Information System for Tampa Bay and

Permanently Fund the PORTS System

ACTION: 

Establish an integrated vessel traffic information system for Tampa Bay and secure

permanent funding for the PORTS navigational system. 

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

A significant portion of this action has been completed, with the establishment of a

coordinated Vessel Tracking Information System (VTIS) for the bay financed by a

consortium of maritime interests, including the Tampa Port Authority. And, although a

permanent funding source for PORTS has not yet been found, current contributions

from all three bay counties will secure PORTS funding through 2008.

VTIS has equipped all harbor pilots with shipboard laptop computers linked to a differential GPS system using Automated Identification System (AIS) technology that

provides real-time information on shipping traffic in Tampa Bay. The pilots can see

precisely where they and all other ships nearby are located at any given time, and

coordinate that information with weather and current data to guard against collisions

or groundings. Since installation of AIS/VTIS, there have been no serious ship-to-ship

collisions in the bay.

Up-to-the-minute information about tides, winds and currents in Tampa Bay is 

available to all mariners (recreational boaters included) through the Physical

Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS), a network of data collection buoys and

sensors located at key positions around the bay. 

PORTS was created by NOAA and is maintained by the University of South Florida

Department of Marine Science. The system can be accessed online or by telephone. 

Hillsborough County has committed to partially fund PORTS for six years from its

share of phosphate severance tax revenue. The City of St. Petersburg made a one time

financial payment to PORTS. Pinellas County has not yet agreed to financial support.

Manatee County has secured a one-time grant of $150,000 through FDEP from

NOAA to support PORTS. 

TBEP should continue to follow implementation of the VTIS and support a secure

funding source for PORTS. 

SP-1
117

ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

SP-1

STRATEGY: 

STEP 1 Continue to monitor implementation of VTIS system. 

Responsible Parties: Tampa Port Authority, Coast Guard, TBEP,

ABM

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 2 Continue to track and support permanent funding of PORTS through local,

state, federal or private funding sources. Funds are also needed for technical upgrades.

Responsible Parties: Local governments, USF, TBEP, FDEP, ABM

Schedule: Ongoing
118

ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Evaluate and Update Oil and Hazardous

Material Spill Response Plans for Priority Areas

ACTION: 

Monitor implementation of oil and hazardous material spill response plans.

STATUS: 

Complete. 

BACKGROUND:

The U.S. Coast Guard Area Contingency Plan (ACP), the strategic plan for responding to oil spills in Southwest Florida, was first completed in 1993, just one month

before a three-vessel collision at the entrance to Tampa Bay left more 300,000 gallons

of oil in its wake. Formal updates to the behemoth document – which spells out

response protocols, identifies response equipment and personnel, and sensitive areas

and resources – are required every five years, but revisions to individual sections

occur more 

frequently as critical new information becomes available. 

One of the most significant efforts of the last decade has been to convert the paper

plan into an interactive, electronic tool. That feat was accomplished in 2001 when the

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, together with the U.S. Coast Guard, Florida

Bureau of Emergency Response and NOAA, released the nation’s first electronic ACP.

The online version eases the complicated process of planning for spills with internal

and external hotlinks that simplify navigation and access to critical maps, information

and real-time data.

The computer version also includes a Geographic Information System (GIS) that

allows spill planners to view digital maps depicting sensitive ecological resources,

public beaches and populations – or create custom maps to see what types of plants

and animals might be affected by a potential spill. One of the most powerful GIS

tools is the Florida Marine Spill Analysis System (FMSAS), which allows users to

coordinate spill planning activities and manage response and mitigation efforts during

an actual spill. FMSAS uses layers of geographic data, imagery and specialized tools

to provide spatial analysis that can be distributed quickly as maps, tables and charts,

enabling decision-makers to direct containment and cleanup operations and minimize

ecological and economic loss. 

Continued monitoring of updates to the ACP, along with spill training exercises that

test readiness and response, will help maintain the region’s preparedness. 

NOAA’s Damage Assessment Center is also forming a Cooperative Trustee-Industry

Pre-Spill Coordination Team, and is currently enlisting electric utilities and petroleum

and chemical handlers to participate. The objective of the Pre-Spill Coordination

Team is to equip the participants with a standardized set of equipment and train them

SP-2
119

ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

SP-2

in approved NOAA techniques to allow the collection of “ephemeral data” just prior

to the impact of spills. These data provide characterization of baseline conditions

which both NOAA and the industries can agree exist in an area expected to be 

impacted. 

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Continue to monitor the updating of the Area Contingency Plan and spill

drills designed to test response capabilities. Incorporate individual facility

response plans into the ACP database.

Responsible parties: US Coast Guard, local governments/agencies,

industries

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 2 Periodically incorporate unannounced drills, withholding announcement of

the spill scenario until the day of the exercise but providing advance notification of the timing of the drill. 

Responsible parties: US Coast Guard

Schedule: Ongoing

STEP 3 Encourage petroleum product handlers to participate in a Cooperative

Trustee-Industry Pre-Spill Coordination Team.

Responsible parties: Petroleum product handlers, NOAA, US Coast

Guard, Industry Trade Groups

Schedule: Upon formation of the Coordination Team

STEP 4 Encourage other hazardous materials handlers to consider a similar program.

Responsible parties: Hazardous material handlers, LEPC, EPA, US

Coast Guard, Industry Trade Groups

Schedule: Upon formation of the Coordination Team

STEP 5 Report traffic patterns, tonnage and changes in ship traffic to the Agency on

Bay Management on a regular basis.

Responsible parties: Tampa Port Authority, Port Manatee, ABM

Schedule: Yearly annual report
120

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY Invasive Species

“Give A Day For The Bay” workdays recruit citizens to help eradicate invasive

plants on public lands all over the Tampa Bay region. Here, a volunteer carries an

armload of air potato vines to the disposal pile. Air potatoes are one of the most

pervasive invasive plants in the bay watershed. 

Photo by Nanette Holland
121

ACTION PLAN CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Assess the Extent of Existing Marine

Bio-invasions in Tampa Bay

ACTION:

Identify existing invasive species in Tampa Bay and expand current bay monitoring

programs to facilitate early detection of new invasives.

STATUS:

New action.

BACKGROUND:

Research in marine bio-invasions in the United States has focused until recently on

the Pacific Coast states and the Northeast. Very little research has been conducted on

aquatic invasive species in the Gulf of Mexico, including Tampa Bay. In the first literature survey of Florida invasions, Carlton and Ruckelshaus (1997) found several nonindigenous species in Florida, mistakenly believed by researchers to be native.

This action supports research to identify the numbers, types and relative risks of invasive species found in Tampa Bay. The effort will provide a basic understanding of the

types of invasives occurring in the bay, their relative ecological risks, and habitats

most vulnerable to invasion. Results of the study can be used to expand existing bay

monitoring programs – such as field seagrass monitoring, benthic sampling or fisheries assessments – so they may serve more effectively as an early warning system to

track the arrival or spread of invasive species.

TBEP funded a literature and field survey by the University of Florida and the U.S.

Geological Survey, completed in 2004 (Baker et al 2004). This work documented 55

known, suspected or likely marine invaders in the Tampa Bay ecosystem. This was the

first baywide assessment of marine invasives in Tampa Bay, and serves as an important foundation to guide future education, research and prevention programs. 

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Support research to facilitate a better understanding of the extent of

existing bio-invasions in Tampa Bay. 

Responsible parties: TBEP, U.S. Geological Survey, University of

Florida, Florida Sea Grant

Schedule: Complete. Literature review and field survey conducted in

2003.

STEP 2 Incorporate research findings into existing bay monitoring programs to

track the movement of existing invasives and provide early warning of

new invasives. 

Responsible parties: TBEP, EPCHC, Pinellas County, Manatee

County, FDEP, FWC 

Schedule: Initiate in 2006

IS-1 

Invasive Species
122

ACTION PLAN CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Invasive Species

IS-2

Implement a Public Education Program to

Enlist Citizen Help in Preventing Marine Bioinvasions

ACTION:

Develop a public awareness campaign highlighting the threats posed by invasive

species, and actions residents can take to prevent accidental introductions of plants

and animals.

STATUS:

New action.

BACKGROUND:

Accidental introductions of invasive plants and animals by a public unaware of the

potential ecological impacts is a growing problem. Aquarium owners may release

unwanted fish, frogs or skinks into local rivers and streams; boaters may take their

boat from one waterway to another without cleaning off the hull and propeller; and

immigrant communities may import and cultivate plants and animals from their 

homeland as foods. Recreational boaters are at least partly responsible for the 

epidemic spread of the zebra mussel throughout the Midwest and Northeast, and

Asian immigrants may have imported and released mitten crabs – a traditional food –

in the San Francisco Bay system. Homeowners may cultivate invasive plants in their

own backyards that can spread unchecked into adjacent wildlands.

An informed public is critically important in preventing introductions of invasive

plants and animals. To increase public awareness of the consequences of bio-invasions

– and enlist citizen help in preventing new invasions — a campaign called “Eyes On

The Bay” is being implemented by the Estuary Program. The campaign will utilize

public service messages, videos, printed materials, the Internet, and other tools to 

provide information about invasive species already in the bay system, as well as those

likely to flourish in Tampa Bay.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Convene an advisory committee to help develop the “Eyes On The Bay”

program.

Responsible parties: TBEP with various partners including FWRI,

Sea Grant, Tampa Port Authority, U.S. Coast

Guard, USGS, Eckerd College, The Ocean

Conservancy, The Florida Aquarium and Tampa

BayWatch

Schedule: Complete. Committee was organized in 2002 and met

several times to formulate education campaign.
123

ACTION PLAN CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

STEP 2 Support development of a comprehensive public exhibit on invasive

species at The Florida Aquarium.

Responsible parties: TBEP, The Florida Aquarium and other “Eyes

On The Bay” partners

Schedule: “Invaders” exhibit opened in 2002 and will remain at the

Aquarium in some form for several years.

STEP 3 Develop and distribute educational materials and tools.

Responsible parties: TBEP, with partners listed above and any other

collaborators engaged in Invasive Species education.

Schedule: Initiated in 2003; continue to expand education programs

in subsequent years. Products include an extensive section

of the TBEP website devoted to invasive species information (“Eyes On The Bay”); a Divers Alert laminated card

with photos and information about marine invaders and a

phone number and website to report sightings; development of a middle-school level Teaching Guide to invasives; and a field guide and companion video showing

homeowners how to identify and effectively eradicate

invasive plants from their landscapes.

IS-2

Invasive Species
124

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Public Education &

Involvement

Volunteers prepare trees for planting at area preserves during a “Give A Day For

The Bay” workday

Photo by Nanette Holland
125

ACTION PLAN CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

Public Education & Involvement

PE-1

Promote Public Involvement in Bay Restoration

and Protection

ACTION: 

Educate the public about the Tampa Bay watershed and involve citizens in activities

that help improve and restore Tampa Bay. 

STATUS: 

Ongoing.

BACKGROUND:

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program continues to emphasize the importance of environmental education to the long-term health of the bay by creating a constituency of

informed, involved citizens. This mission is aided by a Community Advisory

Committee composed of residents from a variety of backgrounds and interests who

share a common concern for the future of the bay.

CAC activities from 1998-2004 included co-sponsoring community forums on land

and water linkage and desalination; serving as judges for the annual Bay Mini-Grants

program; participating in several field trips to learn about issues affecting the bay;

assisting staff by manning the TBEP exhibit at area events; and developing an action

plan addressing stormwater ponds as part of the Program’s first revision of the CCMP.

The CAC doubled in size in 2002 when TBEP issued an open call for residents interested in participating, ultimately adding 18 new members with diverse interests and

backgrounds.

In addition to serving as the staff coordinator for the CAC, the Program’s Public

Outreach Coordinator served as chair of the Manatee Awareness Coalition, an alliance

of scientists, conservationists, industry representatives and others concerned about

protection of Tampa Bay’s population of endangered manatees. A community-based

monitoring and education program called Manatee Watch, initially launched in Spring

1999, recruited and trained more than 150 community volunteers by January 2001 to

assist scientists in boater activity research or provide safe boating information to area

boaters. Tampa BayWatch coordinated the Manatee Watch program with oversight

from the MAC. TBEP funding support for the program included purchase of materials for safe boating kits, such as polarized sunglasses and decals containing important

manatee protection information, as well as support for a full-time program coordinator

for the first year of the project. Staff support included assistance with press conferences, preparation of grant applications and promotional materials and other related

tasks.

TBEP provided additional opportunities for citizens to become directly involved in

helping the bay by launching a series of volunteer workdays in 2001. From 2001-

2005, these “Give A Day For The Bay” events involved nearly 1,000 people in invasive plant removal, tree planting, litter cleanups and oyster reef installations. “Give A
126

ACTION PLAN CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

PE-1 

Day For The Bay” is held quarterly in partnership with local governments and nonprofit organizations.

The Bay Mini-Grant program also provides a forum for public participation in bay

restoration. Grants of up to $7,500 are awarded yearly to neighborhoods, schools, and

non-profit organizations for environmental education, restoration and pollution

prevention projects.

The approval of the Tampa Bay Estuary license plate in 1999 has provided a steady

source of revenues for the Bay Mini-Grant program, financing more than $500,000 in

community-based bay restoration and improvement projects as of 2005.

Other public outreach accomplishments during the 1998-2004 time frame included:

• Producing, in partnership with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, a

colorful pull-out poster brochure emphasizing the need for safe disposal of 

hazardous household chemicals and promoting non-toxic cleaning and gardening 

alternatives.

• Redesigning TBEP’s website, adding special quarterly features and interactive

components such as a user-driven calendar of events and community bulletin board. 

A companion listserve was created that allows TBEP staff to notify mailing list 

members of important meetings and news about Tampa Bay.

• Coordinating design of an educational poster on the wildlife of Tampa Bay and the

importance of protecting the habitats that support those creatures. The poster, called

“Wild and Wonderful Tampa Bay: Habitat Is Where It’s At” featured a photo 

montage on the front and lesson plans, field trips extensions, critter descriptions and 

a resource list on the back.

• Coordinating design, production and distribution of nearly 1 million inserts promoting the Tampa Bay Estuary license plate. The inserts were distributed in City of

Tampa utility bills and auto tag renewal notices in Manatee and Pinellas counties.

• Coordinating production of a poster promoting the license plate, and distributing the

poster to every marina and bait shop in the region.

• Coordinating design and production of a revamped Tampa Bay Boater’s Guide offering several new information layers, including manatee zones, fishing piers, anchorages and marine towing companies.

• Creating the Video Lending Library, which allows anyone to borrow an environmental video from TBEP’s extensive collection for up to a month.

• Developing and implementing the “Eyes on the Bay” invasive species awareness

program, including a special section on the TBEP website, a slide show, a reporting

network and a video showing residents how to eradicate invasive plants in their

backyards. 

Public Education & Involvement
127

ACTION PLAN CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

PE-1

• Producing the “Tampa Bay Ethical Angler Wallet Card,” which promotes responsible

angling in the bay by listing important resource numbers along with regulations governing harvest of the 12 most commonly targeted fish species in the bay. The card is

available in both English and Spanish.

• Sponsoring summer teacher training workshops, with USGS, on the use of aerial and

satellite imagery to detect changes in area wetlands.

With a wealth of outstanding environmental education initiatives and providers in the

region, TBEP’s Public Outreach strategy seeks to address gaps in existing efforts –

audiences and issues that other organizations are not addressing – to minimize duplication. Areas of particular interest to TBEP in recent years have included boater 

education and invasive species awareness and prevention. Future education campaigns

are planned to raise citizen awareness of the water quality impacts of pet waste and air

pollution. 

As education will always be needed, this action should remain in the CCMP in perpetuity. Future implementation should capitalize on existing programs and partnerships

wherever possible, but TBEP should also continue its leadership role in identifying

areas of need and developing innovative, effective programs to inform citizens about

the bay and involve them in its protection.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Continue to reproduce and update successful existing materials, such as the

Tampa Bay Boater’s Guide, localized boating guides, and invasive species

identification and removal guides and videos.

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: Ongoing 

STEP 2 Invest in educational programming that will reach a wider audience, specifically through production of a PBS-quality documentary on Tampa Bay that

could be broadcast statewide as well as regionally.

Responsible parties: TBEP

Schedule: PBS film initiated in 2004 through contract with film producer; production and post-production to take place in

2005-2006; broadcast planned for 2006.

STEP 3 Expand the use of the Internet to provide information to bay residents,

through upgrades and additions to TBEP’s website as well as development

of the Tampa Bay Estuary Atlas, an Internet-based, highly graphical compendium of maps, resource links, historical information and real-time data

about Tampa Bay.

Responsible parties: TBEP for TBEP website; University of South

Florida’s Center for Community Design and

Research for development and maintenance of

the Estuary Atlas

Schedule: TBEP website updates are completed quarterly; USF

launched Estuary Atlas website in Fall 2005

Public Education & Involvement
128

ACTION PLAN CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

PE-1

STEP 3 Provide more educational products in Spanish for the large Hispanic community in Tampa Bay.

Responsible parties: TBEP, local governments, SWFWMD

Schedule: Ongoing; TBEP has produced a Spanish version of the

Ethical Angler Wallet Card and contributed funds for a

Spanish version of the monofilament recycling brochure. 

STEP 4 Allocate a portion of the annual Bay Mini-Grant funding to help meet priority outreach needs identified in TBEP’s workplan.

Responsible parties: TBEP, TBEP’s Community Advisory Committee

Schedule: Beginning in 2005, TBEP’s Community Advisory Committee,

which selects each year’s Mini-Grant recipients, authorized an

increase in the maximum grant funding, from $7,500 to

$10,000, for up to three priority projects identified as priorities

by TBEP staff. The 2005 special RFP topics are community

monitoring of invasive species, pet waste education and awareness of the link between air pollution and water quality. The

projects must meet all regular Mini-Grant criteria for eligibility,

and selection of recipients will be made by the CAC with input

from staff. 

STEP 5 Improve tracking of distribution of educational materials, and evaluation of

the effectiveness of products and programs.

Responsible parties: TBEP, all partners engaged in education and

outreach

Schedule: TBEP initiated tracking database for its materials in 2005;

pre- and post-surveys being developed for “Bay-Friendly

Boater” program to assess audience and effectiveness of

messages; social marketing concepts being incorporated by

SWFWMD, TBEP and other organizations. into existing

and new programs as appropriate.

Public Education & Involvement
129

CHARTING

the COURSE Public Access

FOR TAMPA BAY

A hiker prepares to set out on the Paul Getting Memorial Trail at Weedon Island

Preserve in St. Petersburg

Photo by Ron Putnam
130

ACTION PLAN Public Access CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

PA-1

Reduce Human and Pet Waste in Traditional

Bay Recreation Areas

ACTION: 

Reduce human and pet waste in recreation areas around Tampa Bay.

STATUS: 

New action, replacing original action BH-5.

BACKGROUND:

Several traditional recreational areas along the bay, including the Courtney Campbell 

Causeway in Clearwater and the Gandy Causeway in northern St. Petersburg, are

enjoyed by thousands of people and their pets year-round. However, most of these 

traditional-use beach playgrounds lack bathroom facilities, and studies indicate that 

bacterial contamination of the water may result from human or dog waste in specific, 

localized areas. 

This action seeks to gain a better understanding of the impacts of human and pet

waste from recreation areas on both nutrient loadings and pathogen levels in the bay; 

to identify priority target areas where impacts are greatest; and to implement solutions. The action encompasses recreational areas directly on the bay, as well as those

located on bay tributaries such as the Hillsborough River. 

In the case of human waste, the solutions are likely to be construction of restroom

facilities served by central sewer. In the case of dog waste, the solution may be a

combination of increased enforcement of existing “poop-scoop” ordinances and an 

aggressive educational program highlighting the connection between fecal matter, 

stormwater runoff and water quality, and promoting proper disposal of pet wastes.

According to recent research, non-human waste represents a significant source of 

bacterial contamination in urban watersheds. Genetic studies by Alderiso et al (1996) 

and Trial et al (1993) both concluded that 95 percent of the fecal coliform found in 

urban stormwater was of non-human origin. Bacterial source tracking studies in a

watershed in the Seattle area also found that nearly 20 percent of the bacteria isolates

that could be matched with host animals were matched with dogs. A 1993 USEPA

report estimated that, for coastal watersheds of up to 20 square miles draining to small

coastal bays, two to three days of droppings from a population of about 100 dogs 

would contribute enough bacteria and nutrients to temporarily close a bay to

swimming and shellfishing. 

Several communities around the country have instituted specific public education 

campaigns aimed at reducing pet waste in stormwater runoff, including Philadelphia, 

Seattle, Ventura, California and Williston, Vermont. 
131

ACTION PLAN Public Access CHARTING

the COURSE

F OR TAMPA BAY

PA-1

A study currently underway in Pinellas County on McKay Creek may help to quantify

the impact of animal waste on a localized bay segment. Additionally, local health

departments also may have monitoring information that would help to identify potential problem areas where untreated human or pet waste is suspected to be a culprit in 

bacterial contamination.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Evaluate the relative importance of uncontrolled pet and human waste from

recreation areas, including tributaries, to overall nutrient loading and

pathogen levels in the bay.

Responsible parties: local health departments

Schedule: 2005-2006

STEP 2 Identify recreational areas on the bay or its tributaries where pet and human

waste may result in localized pollution problems. 

Responsible parties: local health departments, TBEP TAC and

CAC

Schedule: 2005-2006

STEP 3 Implement a public education and enforcement campaign to reduce pet

waste in priority areas and educate the public about the link between pet

wastes and local water quality and public health issues.

Responsible parties: local health departments, stormwater departments, TBEP, NPDES Stormwater Committee

(coordinated by TBRPC and DOT) 

Schedule: Initiate in 2006

STEP 4 Encourage local governments to construct restroom facilities at recreational

beaches now lacking them.

Responsible parties: local governments, local health departments,

TBEP (to assist in obtaining funding for the

facilities)

Schedule: Ongoing 
132

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY Implementation &

Financing

Implementing the plan

This chapter describes how the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan

(CCMP) for Tampa Bay will be implemented by local governments, agencies and

other bay stakeholders, and discusses financing mechanisms to ensure that the goals

of the Plan are achieved.

Action Plans

Charting the Course presents a comprehensive slate of actions to assist TBEP’s partners in selecting bay improvement strategies that are the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial for their communities. The original Charting the Course document included action plans for five key areas: Water & Sediment Quality, Bay

Habitats, Fish & Wildlife, Dredging & Dredged Material Management and Spill

Prevention & Response. A sixth action plan outlined strategies for continued Public

Education and Involvement.

This updated version of Charting the Course features revised strategies for many of

the 41 original actions in the Plan, reflecting progress toward implementing the original objectives of the action or, in some cases, a recognition that a different approach is

needed. Some similar actions with common themes, strategies or target audiences

have been merged and a few have been eliminated altogether – either because they are

now considered complete as originally written or because they are no longer deemed

necessary or feasible.

Two additional action plans were added to this update of Charting the Course:

Invasive Species and Public Access. These additions reflect new or emerging issues

not identified as priorities during the development of the original Plan.

Action plans for Tampa Bay identify a range of strategies that allow local communities to maximize return on their investment in bay recovery and protection. Many

actions also achieve multiple objectives, such as pollution prevention and water conservation. Each action plan summarizes the topic and its present status, presents specific management objectives, and includes Next Steps to guide implementation of the

action over the next five years.
133

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

The Interlocal Agreement 

In 1998, local government and regulatory partners of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program

formally affirmed their commitment to implementing the goals of Charting the

Course through the adoption of a precedent-setting Interlocal Agreement.

The agreement, the first of its kind among the nation’s 28 NEPs, represents a binding

pledge by TBEP’s major partners to work together to achieve bay recovery targets.

Key highlights of the landmark agreement include:

• Participation by 13 local governments, regulatory agencies and other organizations

with a vested interest in the bay’s health. The six largest local governments in the

Tampa Bay region – the counties of Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee and the

cities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater — are parties to the agreement, along

with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and the Florida Department

of Environmental Protection. The Tampa Port Authority, Environmental Protection

Commission of Hillsborough County, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish

Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute and Tampa Bay Regional Planning

Council were also signatories. Separate agreements were signed by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, defining their

support for implementing the Plan.

• The adoption of measurable and achievable goals for nitrogen management and

habitat restoration and protection. Progress in achieving these goals will be assessed

every two years, with a formal update of the CCMP every five years. 

• Identification of specific projects, through detailed action plans that each signatory

pledges to undertake to achieve the goals of the management plan.

• Incorporation of bay management goals into local government comprehensive plans

and specific action plans into local Capital Improvement Programs.

• A commitment by regulatory agencies to allow permitting flexibility, when appropriate, to achieve maximum environmental benefit for the bay in the most cost-effective

manner.

The Interlocal Agreement also establishes the Tampa Bay Estuary Program as an

Independent Special District under Florida Statutes; spells out the governance structure of the program, and establishes funding contributions by the signatories based on

population.

The Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium

One of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program’s most prominent initiatives addresses controlling the bay’s nitrogen intake in order to restore vital underwater seagrass beds.

Facilitating this effort is a unique alliance of public and private sector institutions

known as the Nitrogen Management Consortium.

Established in 1996, the Consortium brought together local governments, regulatory

agencies and key industries impacting the bay to develop an equitable and cost-effec-
134

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

tive plan for achieving the recommended nitrogen reduction goal for Tampa Bay. The

Nitrogen Management Action Plan adopted by the group includes estimates of expected reductions associated with various nitrogen-decreasing projects. Additionally, the

Action Plan outlines the responsibilities of TBEP and other Consortium members for

monitoring and tracking the impact of nitrogen management efforts on seagrass recovery and associated water quality.

Because of population growth and related development in the Tampa Bay region,

nitrogen loading to the bay is expected to increase seven percent from 1995 to 2010,

an amount equal to about 17 tons per year. Consequently, local governments and

industries must reduce or preclude annual loadings to the bay by this amount to maintain water quality sufficient to promote seagrass recovery.

The Nitrogen Management Action Plan adopted by the Consortium spells out specific

projects each participant has completed or plans to complete to help meet the nitrogen

management goals. 

The Plan adopted by the Consortium seeks to ensure that the combined amount of

nitrogen entering the bay through stormwater, wastewater, smokestack and vehicle

emissions and other sources does not increase in the future — even with the continued

growth expected in the region. Commitments made by the government and industry

partners participating in the Consortium resulted in a reduction of 135 tons of nitrogen

from 1996-2000 – far exceeding the 5-year cumulative reduction goal of 85 tons. The

Plan was revised again in 2005 to reflect new sources and nitrogen management projects necessary to “hold the line” on nitrogen loadings to the bay to facilitate seagrass

recovery.

Member governments of TBEP’s Management Committee implement a significant

portion of the Consortium Action Plan through the Interlocal Agreement (IA) via individual action plans for the achievement of the CCMP goals. Private sector members of

the Consortium have pledged to implement nitrogen reduction plans for which they

are solely or jointly responsible through an accompanying Resolution. From 1995-

2000, half of the load reduction goal was achieved by the public sector partners, and

an equal amount by the private sector partners of the Consortium.

Action Plan Database

The adoption of measurable and achievable goals is a critical component of Charting

the Course. An important new tool for tracking progress in reaching the benchmark

goals of the Plan – especially for nitrogen loadings – is a customized computer database developed specifically for the Tampa Bay Estuary Program.

The Action Plan Database, a searchable Microsoft Access-based program, documents

partner contributions toward implementation of the major goals of the CCMP, as well

as the individual actions within the Plan. Partners periodically submit action plans

detailing bay-related projects, programs and strategies to TBEP’s database manager,

who enters the information in the database. Reports can be produced in a variety of

formats to assist TBEP in assessing collective progress toward bay restoration.
135

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

A unique aspect of the database is its ability to calculate nutrient reduction loads

based on land use type, location and treatment method. The database assigns a reduction value (estimated from local research and monitoring data) for various land uses

and nutrient reduction methods, allowing TBEP to estimate annual nutrient loadings

baywide and by specific bay segment. This capability will help to provide regulatory

agencies with reasonable assurance that the Tampa Bay nitrogen management strategy

is meeting water quality goals.

The database is expected to be fully operational in 2005.

Financing The Plan

TBEP has historically and will continue to pursue at least eight separate avenues to

secure funding or in-kind support to finance operation of the base program and to

advance implementation of the CCMP. The updated financing plan includes a balance

of both dedicated and variable funding sources at federal, state, and local levels as

well as private and non-profit sources.

The major objectives of the financing strategy are:

• Developing dedicated sources of funding to sustain the base operations of the TBEP,

including personnel, administrative cost, community outreach, environmental monitoring, and technical support. 

• Securing dedicated and variable sources of funding that enhance implementation of

the CCMP and maintain adequate progress toward bay restoration goals. 

DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCES

Currently, the following four funding sources provide dedicated or reasonably secure

funding to support the base program and/or enhance CCMP implementation.

Federal NEP Funding. Congress has authorized a spending level in Sec. 320 of the

Clean Water Act of up to $35-million each year to support the National Estuary

Program. Thhe amount appropriated by Congress for each of the last three years has

been level at about $24.5-million, equating to about $520,000 for each of the 28

NEPs. For several years prior to that, federal funding for NEPs was about $310,000

per program. In view of the popularity of the NEP within Congress, it is reasonably

safe to expect that TBEP will not receive less than $300,000 each year in federal funding through Sec. 320 CWA. 

Funding Commitments in Interlocal Agreement. The Interlocal Agreement through

which the CCMP is implemented obligates local government and agency partners to

fund all TBEP costs approved by the Policy Board in the annual program budget.

One-third of the cost is allocated to the Southwest Florida Water Management District

(SWFWMD) and two-thirds to the six local government partners. The SWFWMD

share is paid equally from five separate river basin boards. When coupled with the

federal NEP allocation administered through EPA, local government and agency cash

contributions have met or exceeded the amount required to operate the program at the

full-service level.
136

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Specialty License Plate. Revenue from the Tampa Bay Estuary specialty license plate

generated a total of $145,305 in calendar year 2003, of which $116,305 was allocated

to TBEP for CCMP implementation. Total annual revenue from license plate sales has

steadily climbed from $50,265 in 2000, the first full year of plate sales. Although the

TBEP Policy Board has thus far allocated its share of the revenues for Bay Mini-Grant

projects, the Board is authorized under the state law that created the Tampa Bay

Estuary plate to use those funds for any types of projects that contribute to CCMP

implementation. Bay Mini-Grants generate tens of thousands of dollars in matching

funds and in-kind services.

Pinellas County Environmental Fund. PCEF is a partnership of Pinellas County and

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, created to raise funds for projects that help

advance implementation of the CCMP. From 2000-2005, PCEF awarded more than

$7.2 million in grants for projects throughout the bay area that contribute to CCMP

implementation. These projects were leveraged with $10.8 million in matching funds.

PCEF officials are actively exploring opportunities to increase contributions to the

Fund from public and private entities in the Tampa Bay region.

VARIABLE FUNDING SOURCES

The following funding sources supplement CCMP implementation through local

action plans of TBEP partners, grants, cooperative agreements, and other mechanisms.

While variable from year to year, they represent significant funding sources for TBEP

and its partners.

Local Action Plans of TBEP Partners. The TBEP Interlocal Agreement calls on each

of the 13 signatory parties to develop and periodically update local action plans

describing projects they propose to undertake that will help advance CCMP goals.

The countless monetary and in-kind expenditures by TBEP’s local government and

agency partners in the course of implementing their local action plans represent by far

the largest source of contributions to CCMP implementation. Habitat restoration and

protection projects alone conducted by TBEP partners from 2001 to 2003 enhanced or

preserved more than 14,000 acres of habitat at a cost of $100 million. Sustaining the

partners’ commitment made in the Interlocal Agreement to achieving the goals of the

CCMP through local action plans is arguably the most critical element of this financing strategy.

Contracted Grant Writing Services. Beginning in 2003, TBEP contracted with a professional grant writer to assist TBEP staff and its partners in preparing grant applications for projects that help implement the CCMP. In her first two years, the grant

writer has assisted TBEP partners in securing over $3 million in 319(h) grants for

stormwater management projects. TBEP plans to continue offering these services to

its local government and agency partners.

Other Grants and Cooperative Agreements. TBEP staff has partnered with federal,

state and local agencies to secure hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants for developing management tools and for research and environmental monitoring projects as

called for in the CCMP. TBEP has teamed with local government environmental

management departments, EPA, USGS, NOAA, and the ACOE to leverage TBEP

funds for priority plans and studies ranging from a dredged material management plan

with the ACOE to atmospheric deposition monitoring with EPA to developing an
137

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

online information atlas of Tampa Bay with the USGS. TBEP will continue to pursue

these opportunities as a means of financing priority research, monitoring, and resource

management needs.

Non-Federal Overmatch Fund. TBEP maintains a Non-Federal Overmatch Fund that

provides a source of matching funds for grants helping to implement the CCMP and

serves as a contingency fund for continuing program operations in the event a major

funding source is lost. Expenses which cannot be paid for with federal money such as

the program’s dues to the Association of National Estuary Programs are also funded

from the Overmatch Fund. The fund balance as of May 2004 was about $224,000. 
138

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Research and

Monitoring 

MONITORING BAY IMPROVEMENT

Effective monitoring is essential to a successful bay restoration effort because it

allows communities to measure return on investment, assess progress and fine-tune

priorities. The baywide monitoring program, initiated through a TBEP effort and

based on EPA’s EMAP statistical design, is implemented by several of the TBEP partners and builds upon existing monitoring data to more clearly assess progress in the

bay’s recovery. Rather than emphasizing compliance with rigid laboratory standards

for water quality, the monitoring program for Tampa Bay seeks to measure instead the

Fisheries are a major component of the Tampa Bay Monitoring Program, which also tracks and

analyzes trends in water quality, benthos/sediment quality, seagrass and atmospheric deposition.

Photo courtesy of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
139

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

health and diversity of bay habitats and the animals that inhabit them.

Elements of the Tampa Bay Monitoring Program include water quality, benthos/sediment quality, fisheries, seagrass, and atmospheric deposition monitoring programs.

The baywide water quality monitoring program is not run by one agency, but is a

combined effort of Manatee and Pinellas counties, Hillsborough’s Environmental

Protection Commission, the City of Tampa, the Florida Department of Environmental

Protection, the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute and the Southwest Florida Water

Management District.

This cooperative approach coordinated through TBEP has resulted in a much more

comprehensive monitoring program than any of the partners would be capable of

independently. All partners provide field collection efforts (using standardized techniques and methods), but each partner contributes specialized services and expertise to

provide baywide analyses for a specific monitoring element.

Continuous coordination between the various local governments and agencies participating in this combined effort is essential. Coordination of the water quality element

is accomplished through the Regional Ambient Monitoring Program (RAMP), which

was initiated by TBEP in 1992, but is now coordinated by the local governments that

run the monitoring programs. RAMP participants meet quarterly to collect water samples from a common container. Each program has its own laboratory run the samples

for a core group of parameters (TN, nitrate+nitrite, ammonia, TSS, TP, orthophosphate, color, turbidity, and chlorophyll a), and the RAMP participants compare the

results. To date, the RAMP participants have worked out differences between laboratories for several critical parameters (chlorophyll, TN, TP, TSS) and continue to work

on others (color, for example).

An important step in the Baywide Environmental Monitoring Program was the agreement in 2001 by one of the partners, Pinellas County’s Department of Environmental

Management, to take the lead in providing statistical analyses of water quality and

benthic data collected baywide using the EMAP-based algorithms currently being

finalized for Tampa Bay by EPA’s Gulf Breeze Laboratory. This effort completes the

elements needed for long-term maintenance of a baywide monitoring plan, and builds

upon the protocols developed by the Environmental Protection Commission of

Hillsborough County for the benthic sample analyses; Manatee County’s Department

of Environmental Management for administering RAMP and baywide grain size

analyses; the City of Tampa’s Bay Study Group for analyses of baywide seagrass transect data; the Southwest Florida Water Management District for aerial photographs

and GIS maps of seagrass extent; and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission’s

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute for baywide fisheries monitoring.

This successful coordination effort has recently been joined by monitoring programs

in Charlotte, Sarasota, Lee and Polk counties, as well as the U. S. Geological Survey,

and has been recognized by the State of Florida as a core group for inclusion in the

developing statewide program.
140

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR TAMPA BAY

Technical advisors to the Tampa Bay Estuary Program have identified several new

research projects to be pursued as funding becomes available. These priorities reflect

emerging issues and newly identified gaps in information. 

High Priority Projects

The following research needs have been assigned high priority status by TBEP’s

Technical Advisory Committee. An update on actions taken on these issues also is

provided.

• Assess the water quality, sediment quality and habitat of tidal rivers, streams and

creeks in Tampa Bay.

Update: TBEP and multiple partners have been awarded a PCEF/NFWF

grant entitled Tampa Bay Tidal Tributaries Habitat Initiative. Work was

initiated in summer 2005. The outcomes of the proposed project will be a

concise set of management objectives (e.g., measurable natural resource

restoration and protection targets for water and sediment quality, habitat

structure, freshwater inflow and/or tidal exchange) and data to address natural resource issues such as the importance and contribution of tidal tributaries to estuarine fish production. The proposed project will provide

empirical data to support necessary management actions for certain

resources. In particular, data will indicate unique resources represented by

tidal tributaries as compared to main-stem rivers or the open estuary (e.g.,

critical nursery habitat). A draft management plan, including recommended

restoration and protection targets, will be developed based upon these data. 

• Examine the effects of changes in offshore bars, ship wakes and wave energy on

seagrass recovery.

Update: TBEP and multiple partners have been awarded several grants to

conduct a pilot Longshore Bar Restoration Project, including funds from

the Hillsborough County Pollution Recovery Trust Fund to examine wave

energy effects; from FDEP to examine historical changes in offshore bars;

and from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to support engineering studies.

In-kind services will be provided by USGS, the Tampa Port Authority,

Mote Marine Lab and Coastal Resources Group, Inc. Work on this large

project was initiated in early 2005, and is expected to result in construction

of a demonstration longshore bar restoration project by 2008.

• Identify and map the location of historic hard bottom and oyster bar communities.

Update: TBEP and USFWS are funding a GIS-based examination of historic and existing oyster bars in Tampa Bay, to be completed by FWRI in

2005. TBEP will be examining how to identify and map deeper-water hard

bottom substrate over the following year.
141

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

• Evaluate the ecological effects of artificial hard bottom habitat installed in the bay,

including reef balls, oyster reefs, and artificial reefs. The potential effect of artificial

hard bottom habitats on the spread of invasive species such as the Asian green mussel will be an important aspect of this effort. 

Update: TBEP has contracted with Delta Seven, Inc. to conduct a pilot

program to compare and contrast the faunal inhabitants of artificial reefs 

to those of natural hard bottom in Tampa Bay. The results from the evaluation will be used to assist in the design of a large-scale project for the

restoration of hard bottom habitats. Results of the pilot project are expected

in early 2006. 

• Determine the important resources affected by changes in freshwater inflow.

Update: The Tidal Tributaries Habitat Initiative will include an evaluation

of salinity “targets” for small tidal streams communities, including fishes

and invertebrates.

• Assess the comparative success and viability of various seagrass restoration or mitigation techniques and scar reduction methods.

Update: FWRI has recently completed a four-year evaluation of the effectiveness of various seagrass planting techniques in Tampa Bay (Penny Hall,

PI). Initial results indicate that, if environmental conditions are adequate to

support seagrass recovery (i.e., adequate light, appropriate sediment conditions, protection from wave energy, etc), most planting techniques can be

moderately successful. Costs of the various techniques vary, as does the

appropriate scale of the plantings. 

Adoption of slow speed zones for manatee protection may also help to

reduce scarring of seagrass meadows, but this has not yet been evaluated.

• Mine existing data sources to examine effects of freshwater inflow changes on fisheries and other biological resources. Develop new databases of fisheries information

(recruitment, etc.) linked to circulation and freshwater inflow.

Update: Ongoing studies funded by SWFWMD to support development

of Minimum Flows and Levels for major Tampa Bay tributaries will

include evaluations of various freshwater inflow scenarios on fisheries and

other biological resources. 

• Quantify ungaged streamflow and groundwater flow to Tampa Bay, and develop

estimates of surface and groundwater flux to Tampa Bay.

Update: USGS is conducting a number of studies on groundwater and

streamflow in Tampa Bay, as part of their Tampa Bay Pilot Integrated

Science Project.
142

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Medium Priority

The following research needs have been assigned medium priority status by TBEP’s

Technical Advisory Committee:

• Assess the effects of intensity of boat use and seagrass scarring on degradation of habitat. 

• Collect data and develop information for smaller tributaries in Tampa Bay.

• Provide more emphasis on shallow water monitoring.

• Deploy additional continuous water quality and flow monitors in the Bay,

considering new instruments.

• Assess potential effects of Minimum Flows and Levels determinations on

existing and potential oligohaline habitat (water column and vegetation).

• Further develop habitat suitability models, and link them to circulation and

streamflow.

• Conduct research on the basic ecology of oysters and oyster bars in Tampa

Bay.

• Develop and implement a monitoring program to track habitat quantity and

quality in coastal marshes and mangrove forests, oligohaline habitats and

isolated freshwater wetlands, and associated uplands, including natural,

restored or created habitats.

• Evaluate the effects of land use changes on groundwater and surface water

flows.

• Conduct research on the basic ecology of freshwater vegetation species in

the Tampa Bay watershed.

• Develop better hydrodynamic models for shallow waters.

• Evaluate how productivity of marsh and mangrove systems is related to

freshwater inflow. 

• Use aerial photographs and imagery for use in evaluating biological

changes.

• Coordinate water quality and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation restoration

efforts.

• Provide seasonal tracking of natural seagrass beds.

• Collect adequate salinity and current data to support models.

• Identify causes of seagrass recovery slowdown or seagrass loss in “problem
143

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

areas” representing at least 10% of a bay segment.

• Initiate and support work to better understand seagrass ecology and biology. 

• Identify and quantify how changes in freshwater inflow impact seagrasses

and macroalgae.

• Conduct long-term monitoring of restoration, including relevant reference

sites and sufficient funding.

• Use experimental transplants of submerged aquatic vegetation in tidal rivers

to evaluate effects of freshwater inflow.

• Consider ecological implications of seagrass fragmentation.

• Develop a structured synthesis/storyline of information about Tampa Bay.

• Investigate seagrass “halos” near discharges.

• Identify critical water quality levels for seagrass recolonization and sustainable populations.

• Undertake a comprehensive benthic survey of Tampa Bay in order to map

the current (and if possible, historic) distribution of natural hard bottom

communities, including oyster reefs and rocky limestone outcroppings.

• Examine the differences, benefits and issues related to natural recovery of

seagrasses versus planting efforts.

• Examine food web impacts of introducing artificial hard bottom substrates

(i.e., reef balls or other materials) into areas that historically do not have

hard substrates.

• Coordinate data collection efforts for simultaneous biology/chemical/physical parameters.
144

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Additional Information/

General References

Unless otherwise noted, all references are from:

Treat, S.F. (ed.). 2005. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information

Symposium, BASIS 4: 27-30 October 2003, St. Petersburg, FL. 295 pp.

WATER & SEDIMENT QUALITY

SHIFTS IN PHYTOPLANKTON, MACROALGAE, AND SEAGRASS WITH

CHANGING NITROGEN LOADING RATES TO TAMPA BAY, FLORIDA. R.

Johansson. Pg. 31-39. 

WATER QUALITY IN TIDAL REACHES OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

RIVERS AND STREAMS. G. Morrison & R. Boler. Pg. 41-58. 

ASSESSING PINELLAS COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING USING A

THREE-TIERED MONITORING APROACH. K. Levy & A. Squires. Pg. 59-65. 

TAMPA BAY WATER’S HYDROBIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAMS. R.

McConnell, D. Robison & T. Janicki. Pg. 67-74. 

A HYDROBIOLOGICAL COMPARISON OF THE ALAFIA RIVER, THE HILLSBOROUGH RIVER, AND THE TAMPA BYPASS CANAL. D. Robison & R.

McConnell. Pg. 75-97. 

A REVISED INTEGRATED HYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION. E. Hosseinipour. Pg. 99-107. 

NEAR-TERM FORECASTING OF SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES FROM THE

HILLSBOROUGH RIVER AND TAMPA BYPASS CANAL SYSTEM. J. Lantrip, M.

Griffin & A. Aly. Pg. 109-118. 

AN INTEGRATED OBSERVING AND MODELING SYSTEM FOR TAMPA BAY.

M. Luther, S. Meyers, S. Gilbert, V. Subramanian, L. Wetzell, J. Scudder, M. Vincent

& D. Burwell. Pg. 119-126. 

EXPORT OF ATMOSPHERICALLY DERIVED NITROGEN IN THE TAMPA BAY

WATERSHED. C. Pollman. Pg. 127-135. 
145

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

SOURCE ATTRIBUTION FOR THE ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHS) TO TAMPA BAY. N. Poor, S.

Campbell & H. Kay. Pg. 137-144. 

FACILITATING ADAPTIVE MONITORING FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS

THROUGH QUALITY ASSURANCE AND DATA MANAGEMENT. D. Bishop &

C. Anastasiou. Pg. 145-149. 

REACHING TAMPA BAY RESTORATION GOALS THROUGH WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT. R. Eckenrod. Pg. 253-256.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT: THE PINELLAS COUNTY EXAMPLE. A.

Squires. Pg. 257-264. 

FROM PUSHING PAPER TO MOVING DIRT: LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS. H. Zarbock, A. Squires, E. Araj, J.

Merriam & R. Brown. Pg. 265-274. 

PROGRESS TOWARDS GOALS FOR TAMPA BAY RESTORATION AND PROTECTION. H. Greening, R. Eckenrod & N. Holland. Pg. 275-289. 

BAY HABITATS

THE MATURATION AND FUTURE OF HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAMS

FOR THE TAMPA BAY ESTUARINE ECOSYSTEM (EXECUTIVE SUMMARY).

B. Henningsen. Pg. 165-169. 

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OF SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL PATTERNS OF

SEAGRASS CHANGE IN TAMPA BAY, 1950 TO 2002. D. Tomasko. Pg. 171-177. 

HARD BOTTOM HABITATS: AN OVERVIEW OF MAPPING AND MONITORING NEEDS ON EPIBENTHIC COMMUNITIES IN TAMPA BAY, FLORIDA. 

T. Ash & R. Runnels. Pg. 179-181. 

FRESHWATER WETLANDS: STATUS AND TRENDS. R. Stetler, B. Wharton, E.

Kelly, G. Morrison & E. Lesnett. Pg. 183-189. 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA COASTAL CONSERVATION CORRIDOR PLAN FOR

THE TAMPA BAY REGION. J. Beever & M. Bryant. Pg. 191-202. 

SYNTHESIZING SEAGRASS MODELS: APPLICATION TO ECOLOGICAL

FORECASTING. B. Robbins, M. Fonseca, E. Koch & A. Malhotra. Pg. 203-207. 

HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELING AND MAPPING: LINKING FISHERIESINDEPENDENT DATA TO HABITATS IN TAMPA BAY AND CHARLOTTE HARBOR. P. Rubec, S. Whaley, J. Lewis, G. Henderson & C. Westergren. Pg. 209-219. 
146

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FISH & WILDLIFE

COMMUNITY-BASED MANATEE PROTECTION IN TAMPA BAY. P. Leasure &

N. Holland. Pg. 1-2. 

POPULATIONS OF JUVENILE AND SMALL-ADULT FISHES IN TAMPA BAY: A

DECADAL PERSPECTIVE. 

R. Matheson, R. McMichael, D. Leffler & T. MacDonald. Pg. 3-18. 

DREDGING & DREDGED MATERIAL

MANAGEMENT

IMPLEMENTING THE TAMPA BAY DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT

STUDY. T. Leeser, H. Greening, R. McMichael, E. Sherwood & S. Grabe. Pg. 229-

237. 

LAKE-DREDGED MATERIALS FOR BEEF CATTLE PASTURE ESTABLISHMENT IN SUBTROPICS. G. Sigua, M. Holtkamp, J. Linton & S. Coleman. Pg. 239-

244. 

SPILL PREVENTION & RESPONSE

PRE-PLANNING A COOPERATIVE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING A

SPILL IN TAMPA BAY. J. Jeansonne. Pg. 247-250. 

INVASIVE SPECIES

THE EFFECTS OF THE ASIAN GREEN MUSSEL PERNA VIRIDIS ON A SHALLOW ESTUARINE ENVIRONMENT: A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT. W. Avery

& R. Johansson. Pg. 23-27. 

PUBLIC ACCESS

DETECTION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF MALE-SPECIFIC RNA COLIPHAGES IN A NEW YORK CITY RESERVOIR TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN

HUMAN AND NON-HUMAN SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION.

K. Alderserio, D. Wait and M. Sobsey. From Proceedings of a Symposium on New

York City Water Supply Studies, ed. McDonnell et al. TPS-96-2. American Water

Resources Association.

BACTERIAL SOURCE TRACKING; STUDIES IN AN URBAN SEATTLE

WATERSHED. W. Trial. From Puget Sound Notes. 30:1-3
147

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY
148

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY Glossary

ALGAE - simple plants that grow in aquatic environments. Excess nutrients

may accelerate the growth of algae, resulting in an algal bloom.

ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION - refers to materials discharged to the

atmosphere from natural sources and anthropogenic (man-made)

sources, such as automobiles, power plants and industries that fall

on the surface of water or land in rainfall or as dry particles. 

BENTHOS - the community of animals living in and on the bottom sediments of a body of water.

CRUSTACEANS - a group of mostly aquatic invertebrates with a hard, jointed shell (exoskeleton); examples include crabs, lobsters and shrimp.

DETRITUS - small particles of organic matter, largely derived from the

decomposition of vegetation; an important food source for many

small marine animals.

DREDGE-AND-FILL - commonly refers to the removal of bottom sediments

(dredging) to construct and maintain canals and ship lanes, and the

use of dredged material (spoil) as fill for development.

ECOSYSTEM - the system of ecological relationships between organisms

(plants and animals) and their physical and chemical environment;

a functional unit that includes both the organisms and their nonliving surroundings.

ESTUARY - a partially enclosed body of water where fresh water from

rivers and streams mixes with salt water from the sea.

EUTROPHIC - refers to water that is rich in nutrients such as nitrogen and

phosphorous, but often deficient in dissolved oxygen. Excess nutrients promote the growth of algae; as the algae dies and decomposes, it depletes the water of oxygen. Eutrophication occurs naturally

in many bodies of water, but can be accelerated by pollution.

EXOTIC - refers to non-native plants and animals that have been introduced

(accidentally or intentionally) to a region. Some exotic species

establish and grow quickly, crowding out native species.

HABITAT - the sum of environmental conditions in a place where a plant or

animal lives.

INVERTEBRATES - animals without backbones; examples include insects,

worms, crustaceans, mollusks and sponges.

MANGROVES - a salt-tolerant tropical or subtropical tree that grows near

the shoreline. Mangroves provide food and habitat for many types

of wildlife, stabilize shorelines and filter pollutants that run off the

land.

MARSH - a wetland where the dominant plants are grasses and sedges, as

opposed to a swamp, where woody plants like shrubs and trees are

the dominant vegetation.
149

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

MOLLUSKS - a group of invertebrates including clams, snails, oysters,

conchs and other soft-bodied animals. Most mollusks have a thick,

hard outer shell; squid and octopus are exceptions.

NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION - refers to pollution that comes from

many sources and cannot be traced to one specific point, such as

pollution from stormwater runoff and the atmosphere.

OLIGOHALINE - refers to water with a very low salinity (salt content),

ranging from 0.5 to 10 parts per thousand (ppt). Fresh water is

characterized by salinity of less than 0.5 ppt; sea water contains

about 35 ppt.

PHYTOPLANKTON - free-floating aquatic plants and plant-like organisms,

usually algae; an important food source for many animals.

POINT-SOURCE POLLUTION - refers to pollution that comes from a specific source or point of origin, such as a discharge pipe or outfall.

RUNOFF - water from rain or irrigation that flows over land. Runoff often

carries pollutants such as oils, fertilizers and pesticides and is frequently a major component of non-point-source pollution.

SALT MARSH - a marsh growing in the intertidal and upper coastal zone,

where salt water from the sea has a strong influence on the types of

plant life. Salt marshes are important wetland habitats for many

kinds of fish and wildlife.

SEAGRASSES - true flowering plants (not grasses) that grow underwater in

shallow bays and estuaries. Seagrass meadows provide food and

refuge for many marine animals.

SHELLFISH - a generic term that includes both crustaceans and mollusks,

especially those used for food. The term finfish, by contrast, refers

to true fishes. 

SPOIL - sediments removed during dredging. Spoil may be deposited underwater or on islands created specifically for spoil disposal.

TOXIC - poisonous or directly harmful.

TURBIDITY - cloudiness of water from suspended material or particles. As

the cloudiness increases, so does the turbidity; low turbidity indicates clear water and may be associated with good water quality.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT - processes that help remove solids, nutrients

and other pollutants from water before it is discharged or reused.

WATER COLUMN - an inclusive term, covering the area that extends from

the bottom sediments to the surface for the water in a lake, estuary

or ocean.

WATERSHED - the geographic region that drains into a particular stream,

river or body of water. The Tampa Bay watershed covers more than

2,200 square miles in six counties.

WETLAND - land where the water table is usually at or near the surface.

Some wetlands contain water year-round; others may remain relatively dry for months, becoming moist only during periods of

heavy rain. Wetlands are vital habitats for many species of plants

and animals; they are protected by local, state and federal regulations.

ZOOPLANKTON - free-floating aquatic animals ranging in size from microscopic, single-celled organisms to large jellyfish. Zooplankton are

an important source of food for many types of fish and animals.
150

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY Acronyms

ACP AREA CONTINGENCY PLAN

AWT ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT

BEMR BAYWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT

BMP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

CAC COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TBEP)

CCMP COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION & MANAGEMENT PLAN

CES COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE 

CFMP CRITICAL FISHERIES MONITORING PROGRAM

CIP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

DDT DICHLORODIPHENYL-TRICHLOROETHYLENE

ELM ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE

EPA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

EPC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION (HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY)

ERP ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT

FAC FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

FDACS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER

SERVICES

FDEP FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

FDOT FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FERC FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

FPL FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT

FWPCA FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

FWC FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

FWRI FISH AND WILDLIFE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FY FISCAL YEAR

FY&N FLORIDA YARDS AND NEIGHBORHOODS

GPS GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

IPM INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT

LID LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT

MAC MANATEE AWARENESS COALITION (TBEP)

MGD MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

MSSW MANAGEMENT AND STORAGE OF SURFACE WATERS

NMC NITROGEN MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM (TBEP) 

NOAA NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

NOx NITROGEN OXIDES

NPDES NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

O & M OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE (BUDGET)

OSDS ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

PAH POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS

PCB POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
151

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

PEL PROBABLE EFFECTS LEVEL

PORTS PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHIC REAL-TIME SYSTEM

PRTF POLLUTION RECOVERY TRUST FUND

RCRA RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT

SWFWMD SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

SWIM SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SWFWMD)

TAC TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TBEP) 

TBBI TAMPA BAY BENTHIC INDEX

TBEP TAMPA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM

TBRPC TAMPA BAY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL

TBW TAMPA BAY WATER

TECO TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY

TKN TOTAL KELDAHL NITROGEN

TN TOTAL NITROGEN

TPA TAMPA PORT AUTHORITY

TSS TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS

USACOE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

USDOT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

USEPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

USF UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

UST UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

VTIS VESSEL TRACKING INFORMATION SYSTEM

WAFR WASTEWATER FACILITY REGULATION DATABASE

WWTP WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT